As I
read this msg again, it is my understanding that the single question is whether
or not component identification markings have to be visible. It's a black
& white issue; neither IPC/EIA J-STD-001C nor IPC-A-610C, the two most
popular industry consensus standards, require markings to be visible. If
your contract requires acceptance to either of these documents, without
other documentation requiring visible markings there is no substantiation to
reject. All other discussion is philosophical. Jack
"TechNet
E-Mail Forum."
<[log in to unmask]>,
"PERALTA,
Kevin (BREA)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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
>