【转帖】drawing standards only for military work

yang686526

drawing standards only for military work
we have a number of engineers here who seem to think that the asme drawing standards etc are only for military work and have no place in a commercial organization.
how would you respond?
also if people want to make this some kind of survey of "we use the standards and are/are not defense/defence" that would be great.
kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
no, they are not only for military. i have had commercial/military/medical/space customers require them.
chris
solidworks 07 4.0/pdmworks 07
autocad 06
definitely not only for military work.  the advantage of using them is (ideally) universal interpretation of drawing packages, and benefit commercial industry as well as military.  properly interpreted and applied, different parts of complex assemblies can be made anywhere and all function correctly.  
also, asme does not stand for american society of military engineers.
the marines think it does, although they fall under the navy.  
chris
solidworks 07 4.0/pdmworks 07
autocad 06
鈥淭he advantage of using them is (ideally) universal interpretation of drawing packages, and benefit commercial industry as well as military.鈥?br />
i think you will find that most of the universe uses iso.
most projects i have worked on, are a mix of asme and iso.
chris
solidworks 07 4.0/pdmworks 07
autocad 06
ajack1,
yes, we are in the minority, but it still provides for universal interpretation, provided the interpretation is per those standards.
ok, change to the op.  instead of specifically asme then asme y14.100, isoxxx, bs 8888 or equivalent industry standards.
better?
by the way i have an opinion i just didnt' want to taint the discussion by putting it in the op.  i want to try and get a better idea of what people think/feel.
kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
certainly for all the major european manufacturers in the automotive industry use iso as do ford owned companies like jaguar, land rover and aston martin.
i work for a multinational corporation (hq in germany) and none of our divisions have ever specified a standard to which they create or interpret drawings. so each division has their own opinion about each and every spec on a drawing - most of which do not conform to any standard.
so parts are not necessarily interchangeable and costs vary between divisions because everybody does things a bit differently. it is nuts and nobody within the corporation thinks it needs to be changed.
in the usa we have recently added a note to our title block indicating asme y14.5m-1994 and our own corporate addendum. since most of our other divisions are european we probably should have indicated iso but in the absence of any corporate guidance we picked what worked.
i am in support of asme/iso standardization in regards to drawings because it (ideally) facilitates communication of design intent. in the absence of some sort of standard, it is the wild west out there in regards to interpreting drawing (military or commercial).
we have had to deal with a lot of crazy nonsense because of everyone's opinions about gd&t rather than referencing a part of a standard.