To sum up: Not every welding/soldering process NEEDS validation. It pretty much depends on specifications, product application and the organization's ability to check the important characteristics of the hardware, post soldering/welding.
Oh, I read that entire thread a couple times before posting this thread. You and Andy were going back and forth and both had your own stance on the issue. Instead of using make-believe flower boxes or art sculptures, I thought I'd toss in our real-life examples and our processes for more precise feedback from different view points. So far this thread has accomplished gathering two soldering standards that we didn't have before, and the fact certain people are tired of this topic.
To sum up: Not every welding/soldering process NEEDS validation. It pretty much depends on specifications, product application and the organization's ability to check the important characteristics of the hardware, post soldering/welding.
Oh, I read that entire thread a couple times before posting this thread. You and Andy were going back and forth and both had your own view on the issue. Instead of using make-believe flower boxes or art sculptures, I thought I'd toss in our real-life examples and our processes for more precise feedback from different view points.
Regardless of whether you're talking about flower boxes or the real-life examples, what Sidney said still applies. Not every soldering process NEEDS validation. It boils down to whether you can verify the results by test or inspection and back up your reasoning for leaving it at that. If you've never received a finding for what you're doing, then you seem to be doing the right thing. I'd just make sure that you have a reason for why you're not validating the process when/if an auditor ever asks.
Regardless of whether you're talking about flower boxes or the real-life examples, what Sidney said still applies. Not every soldering process NEEDS validation. It boils down to whether you can verify the results by test or inspection and back up your reasoning for leaving it at that. If you've never received a finding for what you're doing, then you seem to be doing the right thing. I'd just make sure that you have a reason for why you're not validating the process when/if an auditor ever asks.
If you've never received a finding for what you're doing, then you seem to be doing the right thing. I'd just make sure that you have a reason for why you're not validating the process when/if an auditor ever asks.
With respect, this is not a good reason to decide on a course of action! It's akin to not making a dimension correctly on a component and then saying, "If you've never had inspection reject it, don't worry, just have a good reply if asked"....
With respect, this is not a good reason to decide on a course of action! It's akin to not making a dimension correctly on a component and then saying, "If you've never had inspection reject it, don't worry, just have a good reply if asked"....
The example you provided really doesn't fit in the same context as what I previously stated, but I get your meaning. So, I'll disagree with you in that if you have justification for why you're doing what you're doing, and it meets the intent of the requirement and can be explained as such, then you're fine, which was the basis of my statement.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to the use of cookies.
