Post Job Free

Resume

Sign in

Engineer Test

Location:
Andrews, IN, 46702
Salary:
60/hr
Posted:
September 15, 2017

Contact this candidate

Resume:

Charles M. (Mike) Millner

**** **** - *** *****

Andrews, IN 46702

260-***-**** ac2bly@r.postjobfree.com

SUMMARY OF SKILLS

A result oriented and effective Test / Quality Engineer with strong skills in setting up, conducting, and evaluating the effects of various environmental (Vibration, Thermal, etc.) tests.

Evaluate test methodologies used at vendor facility for contract conformance and or effectiveness in the elimination of defective material or manufacturing processes.

Define, specify, estimate, install, and maintain all types of environmental test equipment. (i.e. Vibration, Thermal Cycling, Thermal Shock, Humidity, Altitude, Immersion, Loose Cargo, Transit Drop, and Ballistic Shock). Perform vibration and thermal surveys to obtain optimum screen for defective parts and design.

Design vibration and thermal holding fixtures for units under test. Generate test and calibration procedures for operation and certification of test equipment.

Implement environmental test equipment into manufacturing and laboratory environments to achieve the most versatile and cost effective use of equipment.

Proficient with the following brands of test equipment: Unholtz-Dickie, Ling, MB, Spectral Dynamics, Hewlett Packard, Thermotron, and Espec.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

07/2002 – 07/2003 Goodrich Aerospace – Jamestown, North Dakota.

Test Engineer, Cargo handling equipment for airline industry.

05/99 - 06/2002 ESP Corporation - Columbia City, Indiana.

Engineer-Research & Development, and Supplier Qualification. Responsible for design, implementation, ongoing quality and technology improvements of product line used in the construction industry.

01/98 – 02/99 Wabash Technologies - Huntington, Indiana.

Test Engineer, Automotive Positioning Sensors for Ford, Honda. Responsible for all aspects of test facilities and supervision of technicians conducting tests of finished product and supplier furnished components.

02/95 - 01/98 Delphi Automotive - Anderson, Indiana.

Test Engineer, Automotive Ignition Systems for General Motors. Responsible for design, build, error proofing, implementation and PPAP of assembly line test stations for PREMIUM V6 ignition system in Torreon, Mexico. Implemented new test methodology for design verification that resulted in significant improvement of test, and cost savings to company.

09/83 - 06/91 ITT Defense, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Test Engineer, Communication system for United States Government. Responsible for design, implementation, and support of environmental test equipment used in production and laboratory facilities. Supervised engineers, technicians and assembly personnel.

06/80 - 09/83 Hughes Aircraft, Missile System Group, Tucson, Arizona.

Project Engineer (12 months) for the electronic interface of the Phoenix missile to the F14 radar system. Test Engineer, various missile programs for Department of Defense and international customers. Responsible for support of existing programs and providing bid proposals for potential new contracts. Supervised engineers and laboratory personnel.

09/70 – 01/75 United States Marine Corps.

Airborne Radio Operator / Loadmaster in C-130F Aircraft. Obtained the rank of Sergeant, Vietnam veteran, Honorable Discharge.

EDUCATION

Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering Technology, 1980, Purdue University.

SKILLS

Why We Test All testing can be categorized into two distinct groups which are those required by contract, and those that the manufacturer elects to perform. In all cases these tests should add to the quality of the end product. For new technology, the Design Engineer must attempt to anticipate the environments that his product will be subjected to in its lifetime and design or specify the components accordingly. For existing technology, the Project and Test Engineer must constantly evaluate production line test failures, simulated life test failures, and field failures as a guide to improve the product.

Production Line Tests Selecting the type of test, and where to administer the test in the production process is usually dictated by costs. The test must add value to the product line where a defective purchased part or defective manufacturing process is discovered in its earliest stages. A commonly overlooked “Cost” is the field failure attributed to poor workmanship or process flaw. The warranty replacement “Cost” is only a fraction of the “Cost” to your reputation.

Stimulate or Simulate When determining the test parameters the product is subjected to in house, or those performed by a supplier as a contract requirement, the Engineer must determine if it is adding to the value of the end product. Tests that “Stimulate” are generic exposures performed as an arbitrary benchmark, and do not address the environments that the product will see in the field. Tests that “Simulate” are those exposures performed that are tailored to the actual field conditions. One of the most visible examples of this possible wasteful testing for electronic components is a “Sine Sweep Vibration” exposure, which will never occur in the field. The product may indeed see one or more narrow frequency bands of mechanical stress, with a background of “Random Vibration,” which is drastically different than a “Sine Sweep.” This exposure can then be both specified as a vendor requirement, and duplicated as part of the product qualification effort.

Product Qualification Testing Great care must be taken in determining how these tests are performed. In the perfect scenario, the Engineer would have an unlimited budget and time for completion. In reality, a major pitfall is the over use of the accelerated test that does not include all the elements, and how they are combined. Vibration exposures at ambient temperature, thermal exposures without vibration, the complete absence of ozone or ultraviolet light exposures for plastics and rubber, are just a few.



Contact this candidate