Inspection Kevin;

    By past experience, the best thing is assure that the component is
placed correctly at pick and place equipment. Nor visual inspection neither
testing will give you 100% coverage.
    At least one drawing with component location should be provided to pick
and place machine verification for the first board.

 Thanks


  -----Original Message-----
  From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of PERALTA, Kevin (BREA)
  Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 2:50 PM
  To: [log in to unmask]
  Subject: [TN] Inspection


  We have a situation at our facility in which I feel two inspectors are
correct from two perspectives. I would like to ask members to submit
situations and, or fixes to the following:

  IPC-A-610 does not mention acceptance criteria for component location &
identification for components that are too small to identify (e.g.; SMT).
One inspector does not want to accept something by faith, and there's no
callout for the ID of a component on an electronic assembly that is too
small to identify on our blueprint. He would like to reject them, and let
MRB disposition the rejection, which I feel is correct.

  Our other inspector will still accept the assembly on the basis that
testing will confirm if the component is the correct or incorrect one.

  From a production supervisor's perspective, the latter is preferred. But,
from a Quality perspective, the former process should be followed. There is
no mapped out process for this situation. I actually had an engineer tell
one of our inspectors, "that if it was the wrong component, it would not fit
in it's place on the assembly" (I think we shipped him off to Alaska)!

  I'd appreciate any response sent to me, and would invite any questions
concerning such situations. Thank you!



  Kevin L. Peralta
  Class "A" Instructor
  Senior Quality Systems Analyst
  TRW Aeronautical/Lucas Aerospace