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
>