Hans and Doug and all (the others, cl.2-, folks)... ... ok, sure, of course (to say that MIL doesn't maintain state-of-the-art level would be absurd, isn't it?). BUT the question and its implication concerning the non-MIL-folks are as follows: facing to MIL-contracts, most "industry"-contracts (e.g. cl. 2) aren't provided with so a stringent requirement flowdown. The detail requirements of a refered standard are sometimes "agreed", but neighter really known nor checked. So, in fact, a industry-contract refering some IPC-standards often means a "70%-fulfillment" or - worse -"intention". U didn't agree? c'mon, don't tell me you cl.2-Industry-folks are sure all related IPC-paragraphs are fulfilled by all your changing!- sub-sub-...-contractors. The problem is not the outlook of the turtles n' orangies (nice expression, isn't it? thanks to Steve!), but more "hidden" aspects, e.g. (if you are applying conformal coating, may be important for SIR/E-migration or adhereance) do you really know the current used solder resist type or the fluxer of your sub-sub-contractor? So I think for most real existing applications the requirement flowdown ends at a sub-sub-stage (with a more or less well balanced effort/risk-mix). At the other side exactly such a fuzzy specification ("70%-fulfillment" - or -"intention") would allow to define a generally applicable set consisting of "the most important IPC-standards" (in their newest issue) which would address the most points which going wrong in the real existing industry. Without the need to refer the applicable issue. And exactly this would be one of the advantages of such a fuzzy specification: to be able to refer to the newest available issue of a spec (now J-STD-001C is available? okydky, lets work C!) without detailed pre-screen and without sluggish change of all the agreement with all the sub-sub's. I'm not aware about the degree of penetration of the IPC-standards in US, but in Europe the application of IPC-standards looks more likely at a earlier epoche of penetration. So it's important to introduce the standards step-by step, not as a wheelbarrow loaded with tons of paper. I think there are "some (around eight) important IPC-standards" (with J-STD-001 as causal nexus) allowing to introduce the IPC-tree into the supply-chain. I'm aware this would not solve all problems, but this spec-set would simplify the comunication between all: the pcb-manufacturers and -assemblers, their sub-sub's and consultants. I would be interest to hear about the IPC-awarness, -fulfilling, -application in the pcb-industry - assemblers and manufacturer - west of the Azores. Bernhard Merry X-mas and a Happy New Year post scriptum: Doug, what means SIRGuru? SIR as Surface Insulation Resistance? Do you are the SIR-pope of half the MIL-planet? > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 08:29:41 EST > From: "Douglas O. Pauls" <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: J-STD-001C STATUS > > Amen brother Amen. I felt the same way when I was with NAVAIR. The > phrase > "close enough for government work" really ticked me off because it usually > put our aviators at risk. I was glad to see your response. > > By the way, an old friend of mine works down at Robins. F. Michael > Bratcher > (or just Mike). Would you happen to have his e-mail address handy? > > Doug Pauls > CSL > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:54:37 -0500 From: Hinners Hans Civ WRALC/LYPME <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: J-STD-001C STATUS Bernhard, Who says the Mil Industry doesn't need state of the art? I see pilots and flight crews (almost) everyday. They don't know me, but I adopted them the day I started working here. In my eyes, they are family and deserve nothing less than cutting edge. I'd rather my pilots have state of the art avionics than whomever they fly against. ---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:28:51 +0100 From: Wanner Bernhard <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: J-STD-001C STATUS Bill, In my view it is of fundamental importance to reform such standards now and then (version B has been issued 1996). For example now I'm looking for a version C containing a current table 3-1, because it will be easier to explain the fundamental requirements to our suppliers. IPC has to consider also the needs of the "non-MIL-Industry" which is looking to a standard reflecting the technical state of the art. So I think (with view to the necessary ballot loop) it's a adequate intervall of re-publication. Bernhard > ############################################################## TechNet Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8c ############################################################## To subscribe/unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in the body: To subscribe: SUBSCRIBE TECHNET <your full name> To unsubscribe: SIGNOFF TECHNET ############################################################## Please visit IPC web site (http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm) for additional information. If you need assistance - contact Gayatri Sardeshpande at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5365 ##############################################################