Often times Email Accounts aren't hacked, They are "spoofed". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_spoofing  One way to minimize that is to try to avoid having a text version of your email address online anywhere.

This will prevent and or eliminate spoofing that is generated by Web-bots searching the internet for the @ symbol or the word "at".

That will not prevent your email from having problems.

Another contributing factor is replying to or opening any kind of "unusual" email and especially responding to it. When you do, your email address becomes a valid target.

Here is a site that actually lists one of my old ones http://www.email-format.com/d/weldinginspectionsvcs.com/ for a domain I am no longer in control of and an add

I would just be wary of posting my email address if I was concerned with security issues. I have multiple domains so whenever I want to post an email address online, I can make up a new email address, post it in that location only, and see what kind of junk comes to that address.

If you look at http://www.email-format.com/d/spemail.org/ your old one isn't t here but that doesn't mean it isn't floating around somewhere else. If you scroll over the right side of the list, you will see options to validate addresses or mark them as bad. I think the only reason for this is for people to gather email addresses for spam and phishing mail.

Also notice at the top of the page the ability to download as a spreadsheet.  A great way to bulk send messages.

Have a good day.

Gerald Austin

Hello Allan, hope all is well with you. Sorry it took awhile for me to follow up on this great response. Your comments are great and bring to light some different things to consider. My desire has been to teach and I am relatively new to the process compared to my work experience. And of course, I enjoy sharing what little things I have gathered over the years with others. The problem is that I may not have gathered all I need too be as effective as I need to be. I think sharing and networking among instructors would be a great way for me to grow personally and hopefully help others.  I sometimes have my "head in the sand" when it comes to the "business side" of teaching.

The stumbling blocks you speak of are so true but I think the "financial" one may also be related to good ole pride and ego. Maybe some people don't want to be helped or to share their ideas for various reasons. Or mmaybe some people don't want to known for sharing their ideas or needing help from others. Maybe there is a concern that supervisors will change opinions, or look for others to do their job.

Regardless of the reason, I think and hope there are individuals who desire to help the skills and abilities of others interested in welding develop in a way better than theirs did.

I attended a conference last summer in Indiana and mentioned organizing instructors. No response or follow up. ( I don't discount the possibility that many shied away from me because sometime I do talk too much about some subjects). But thse people were there ! So I would think they are interested in growing as instructors. Sure the conferences and vendor "show and tells" are great. But I think there is something to be said for peer to peer social learning. Yet it doesn't seem to have "caught on" here for organized subjects related to teaching. The "Instructors Institute" heading has NO activity. I don't even know what the "Instructors Institute"is. 

You and many others have contributed tremendous amounts of wealth and knowledge on this forum. I think this style of forum is unmatched for social learning. Facebook, Linked in and others pale in comparison to this forum and others related to welding.  I have recently tried to spend less time here and more on some of the newer platforms to see how useful they were. And as far as useful information, nothing beats this !  But as instructors, I think there are so many things to discuss, that an entire website could be devoted to it. (But thats another topic).

My weak point in the teaching world is awareness of many of the things you discuss in your reply and I could make quite a few posts/question about many of the things you wrote. Much food for thought.

I wanted to write more but need to get to the shop.

Of course the FLOW is great in the post. My brain operates more like the water splashed from a dixie cup by a dropped bowling ball!

Thank you so much for your time and advice over the years.

have a great day

Gerald Austin

Allan, Thanks. I look forward to it !

Have a great day.

Gerald

Same to you !

I have often wondered why instructors do not organize a bit better. We all have varying types of skills and experiences. I recently suggested our local section try to network instructors in the area but not really sure how it went over. Even went as far as building a "Welding Instructors" forum to allow for semi-private discussions of topics related to welding education.  But that too, not much interest.

At the Educational Conference that AWS had this past year in Indiana, I brought the topic up. Not much interest.

If you are close to Northeast Tennessee, I have considered hosting an educational session here for instructors to share ideas, develop skills, and discuss training methods.  Haven't went forward with it yet. Things are starting a little slow here so I better not bring up anything new to those I work for.

However, If you are ever in the Greeneville Tn area, look me up.

Gerald Austin
6626600162 Call or Text

I haven't been on the forum in awhile but WELCOME.

Have a great day.

Gerald Austin

Very Sad. A tremendous contributor to my knowledge and understanding.

Welcome to the forum!

Everyone learns differently so I would try to gain as much information as possible. I strongly Suggest the AWS Welding Handbook Volume 1- 8th or 9th edition. It has a pretty good summary of most of the topics referred to in the BOK. Itt by no means is all inclusive of every question on the test but that along with the Certification Manual for Welding Inspectors is all I used for self study. However I did not use the materials for study only. They were a daily read just because I liked em.

I am not sure what a Pre-Seminar Class is and have not taken one but I am sure for some people its extremely helpful in helping the upcoming information in the seminar soak in better.

The materials listed at http://www.aws.org/certification/endorsebok/index.html would be the place to start. One thing about the Welding Handbook Volume one is the fact that it has quite a bit of information taken from the other referenced documents.

CHAPTER 1 – SURVEY OF JOINING, CUTTING, AND ALLIED PROCESSES
Introduction
Joining Processes
Cutting Processes
Thermal Spraying
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 2--PHYSICS OF WELDING AND CUTTING
Introduction
Fusion and Solid-State Welding
Energy Sources for Welding
Arc Characteristics
Metal Transfer
Melting Rates
Physical Properties of Metals and Shielding Gases
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 3--HEAT FLOW IN WELDING
Introduction
Heat Flow Fundamentals
Quantitative Calculation of Heat Transfer in Fusion Welding
Conduction of Heat during Fusion Welding
Convective Heat Transfer in the Weld Pool
Relative Importance of Conduction and Convection
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 4--WELDING METALLURGY
Introduction
Physical Metallurgy
Metallurgy of Welding
Weldability of Commercial Alloys
Corrosion in Weldments
The Brazed or Soldered Joint
Corrosion in Brazed and Soldered Joints
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 5--DESIGN FOR WELDING
Introduction
Properties of Metals
Weldment Design Program
Welded Design Considerations
Design of Welded Joints
Selection of Weld Type
Sizing of Steel Welds
Tubular Connections
Aluminum Structures
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 6--TEST METHODS FOR EVALUATING WELDED JOINTS
Introduction
Testing for Strength
Hardness Tests
Bend Tests
Fracture Toughness Testing
Fatigue Testing
Corrosion Testing
Creep and Rupture Testing
Testing of Thermal Spray Applications
Weldability Testing
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 7--RESIDUAL STRESS AND DISTORTION
Introduction
Fundamentals
Nature and Causes of Residual Stress
Effects of Residual Stress
Measurement of Residual Stress
Residual Stress Distribution Patterns
Effects of Specimen Size and Weight
Effects of Welding Sequence
Residual Stress in Welds Made with Different Welding Processes
Weld Distortion
Reducing or Controlling Residual Stress and Distortion
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 8--SYMBOLS FOR JOINING AND INSPECTION
Introduction
Fundamentals
Welding Symbols
Welding Symbols for Specific Weld
Brazing Symbols
Soldering Symbols
Inspection Symbols
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 9--WELDMENT TOOLING AND POSITIONING
Introduction
Fixtures
Positioners
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 10--MONITORING AND CONTROL OF WELDING AND JOINING PROCESSES
Introduction
Principles of Monitoring and Control
Sensing Devices
Process Instrumentation
Process Monitoring Systems
Process Control Systems
Monitoring and Control Systems
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 11--MECHANIZED, AUTOMATED, AND ROBOTIC WELDING
Introduction
Mechanized Welding
Automated Welding
Robotic Welding
Planning for Automated and Robotic Welding
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 12--ECONOMICS OF WELDING AND CUTTING
Introduction
The Cost Estimate
Economics of Welding
Automated and Robotic Systems
Economics of Resistance Spot Welding
Capital Investment in Welding Automation and Robotics
Control of Welding Costs
Economics of Brazing and Soldering
Economics of Thermal Cutting
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 13--WELD QUALITY
Introduction
Defining Weld Quality
Overview of Weld Discontinuities
Discontinuities Associated with Fusion Welding
Discontinuities Associated with Resistance Welding
Discontinuities Associated with the Solid-State Welding Processes
Discontinuities in Brazed and Soldered Joints
Significance of Weld Discontinuities
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 14--WELDING INSPECTION AND NONDESTRUCTIVE EXAMINATION
Introduction
Personnel Qualifications
The Inspection Plan
Nondestructive Examination
Metallographic Examination Methods
Inspection of Brazed and Soldered Joints
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 15--QUALIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
Introduction
Welding and Brazing Procedure Specifications
Qualification of Welding and Brazing Procedures
Performance Qualification
Standardization of Qualification Requirements
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 16--CODES AND OTHER STANDARDS
Introduction
Types of Regulatory Documents
Standards-Developing Organizations and Welding-Related Publications
Guidelines for Participating in International Standards Activities
Conclusion
Supplementary Reading List

CHAPTER 17--SAFE PRACTICES
Introduction
Safety Management
Protection of the Work Area
Personal Protective Equipment
Protection against Fumes and Gases
Safe Handling of Compressed Gases
Protection against Electromagnetic Radiation
Electrical Safety
Fire Prevention
Explosion Prevention
Process-Specific Safety Considerations
Safety in Robotic Operations
Conclusion
Bibliography
Supplementary Reading List

APPENDIX A--TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX B--METRIC PRACTICE GUIDE FOR THE WELDING INDUSTRY

Here is the BOK for the Fundamentals.
PART A: FUNDAMENTALS  (CWI and CWE)
Subject  Percentage
Welding Processes  10%- Chapter 1
Heat Control & Metallurgy (carbon and low-alloy steel)  6% Chapter 2,3,4
Weld Examination  9% Chapter14
Welding Performance  9% Chapter 15
Definitions and Terminology  12% Appendix A
Symbols - Welding and NDE  10% Chapter 8
Test Methods - NDE  8% Chapter 6, 13, 14
Reports and Records  6% Various
Duties and Responsibilities  4%
Safety  5%- Chapter 17
Destructive Tests  4%-Chapter 6
Cutting  3% Chapter 1
Brazing  2% Chapter 1
Soldering  1% Chapter 1

Of course if you can get ALL of the referenced books, then do it. I imagine with the online prep course there is a pretty good amount of material provided. The Welding Handbook is what I suggest as a learning tool more than a prep for a test tool.

If all of your experience is as an operator and not welding related, then it may take a few different methods to soak it all in.  If you already have some core knowledge based upon prior study/interests then it may be no problem and the courses may be all you need. BUT you can never go wrong getting welding books.

Gerald Austin

Is it possible that this "idea" is taken from the prequalified procedure limitations of D1.1 ? My 2010 is at the office but the single pass layer thickness I am pretty sure is limited to 1/4" (Slightly over the distance for theoretical face to root of 5/16" fillet weld).

However as a procedure variable outside the scope of D1.1 prequalified, no such requirement exists that I am aware of (And that does not mean it does not exist) But in my limited experience that is not where limits exist for many other codes.  Is that a good idea YES IT IS. I firmly believe that one of the leading causes of fusion related discontinuities is the thickness of the puddle and where the arc falls in that puddle.

I understand the requirement in that context. I just do not understand a "blanket statement" based upon the text you reference.  The 1st "Welding Supervisor" that brings that one to my attention as a criteria for rejection will definitely be queried as to a "REAL" acceptance criteria that binds that requirement. If he/she refers to the CMWS then I will probably follow up with something more in tune with the actual requirements related to the project.

There are just SO MANY welding wives tales that get generated from valid requirements that apply to a particular situation, Those requirements then become accepted as facts and many never question  the context of when they apply. Who is to doubt the word of a "Certified" person. Thinks  that happen in D1.1 Preq don't apply to qualified which don't apply to sec IX blah, blah blah.

Again, shop requirements, individual company requirements are those of the shop or company. Good/Bad or otherwise, they are what they are. Actual acceptance criteria is what it is. Neither one by itself make for a quality program.

Have a good day.

Gerald

ALSO, I ran into some of your HR people at a recent conference, they spoke very highly of you. I told them what I thought about you based on what I've seen here.

I'll have to find one of them and check it out. There may be tons of stuff I have been missing out on. :).  I'm excited.

Tell me more about WHY this is true ? I have not seen the CM for welding supervisors but I have made quite a few welds on various structures with groove welds with individual passes larger than a 5/16" fillet weld equivalent size. Many of said structures and vessels still in service.

And again, I may be missing something in the context of this conversation. Just wondering if another welding wives tail is going to start from the highly peer reviewed reference you mention. Again, I understand company requirements, heat input blah, blah.. but does that book really say that ?

Gerald

If those were pushed then I should send you a Lobster too. Maybe just a few Tenn Mudbugs. I don't doubt you are telling me the truth but I have fought this on MANY welder tests that continued to fail.

Of course I may be completely lost as I received a poster from the blue company a week or two ago that says amperage goes down as wire feed speed goes up. So I am throwing my knowledge out the window.

Gerald

After industry gets involved then all of the shops with regular non-engieered for safety welding equipment are burdened with being non-compliant or upgrading the equipment. Sounds like a good deal for the equipment manufacturers.

For some companies the cost to implement "engineering controls" is nothing. They just buy new $10000.00 power sources and wire feeders. What if we all decided that smoke, EMF, repetitive strain, are all things that need to be eliminated. Though the risk is small probably based on the number of welders, it is still a risk. EVERYTHING can be engineered out. The level at which it becomes a problem for an organization is more related to the organization than it is to the problem.

How many companies have installed fume extracting Mig Guns to limit welders exposure to ozone? Not many. But how many have strict and strongly enforced policies for the lifesaving safety glasses ?

Just some of my thoughts.

As I said before, I'm all for safety. I also believe all accidents could have been prevented but also believe they NEVER will be. I gotta worry about mine 1st, others 2nd.

Awareness, A Safety Culture that promotes Employee input on hazard elimination, Management that supports safety for safety and not compliance, and training to support it all.

Gerald

I may be looking at this the wrong way. I too am very concerned with safety. But the idea of "engineering out" hazards can really get into some tricky places. 

When engineering is not practical, protective measures are completely fine. PPE to protect the individuals skin from hot/sharp wire is the same PPE that is used to protect the individual from molten sparks. If the engineering controls are workable, then by all means do them. But Could the safety Nazis then also decide its better to use a certain transfer mode, process etc.. just because it makes less sparks?

I truly think PPE and Training for awareness are key. Lets not assume all welders must have engineering controls. When I have taught "Welding Safety" in the past I have tried to stress the safety hazards that are inherent to that process.

Gerald

I am not understanding.

If the WPS says ER70S-6 then that is what must be used. If the WPS says A Number 1, then that is what must be used . If the contractor listed ER70S-6 in the PQR and the WPS says Er70S-6 then there is no problem. As long as they are using ER70S-6. If an electrode does not have an A-number (70S-6) then that is OK.

I apologize for not being sure on what you are asking.

Gerald

Good stuff Henry. I actually used a Harbor Freight bender for Aluminum bend test. Worked REAL well for $99.00.

They are referring to what I have always called a "hot work area".  I haven't started any SENSE classes yet but will be using the NCCER books. I hope to get these instead.http://www.cengagebrain.com/shop/isbn/9781435427884.

Have a good day

Gerald

What is this from?

With consumable insert joints utilizing an Inverted T style the included angle is typically greater than that used on conventional open root joints. 80 degrees+.  As the joints get tighter, pulling the insert is a little harder.

CS, SS all pull well in my opinion. As you move into Inconel, NiCU, and CuNi, things get more difficult.  I shouldn't say it around these other ex navy guys but on seawater systems, I have pulled more than one insert out of a joint and open rooted it due to the difficulty precleanining the inside of the pipe to remove the seawater caused residue. Glad I did, it was helpful when I got to the "Real World" and realized nobody had a clue what an insert was.

http://www.weldingdata.com/New_Folder/misc/consuminsert.html is a page I made to answer a question a few years ago but it only shows a representation of an insert. Doesn't really say much.

Gerald

I worked for the following

QBEK Inspection-Now owned by KBR. I averaged 20 hrs per week with them. They are looking to replace some people retiring.

Footbridge Staffing was good to me. Joe Squires is a contact 877-807-8400. They aren't doing anything today but like all headhunters, they will take you info.

SQA Services has called me a few times. I did some work for them 10 years ago (Including shopping for batteries) and a year or two ago. Seemed like a pretty professional outfit.

I thought I had posted t his earlier but guess my mind is going.

A filler metal that meets the requirements of the applicable AWS Classification will have specified "Nominal Chemical Composition" values stated within the specification.

You can lookup some of the ASME Interpretations on the subject. Here is one.

IX-83-46

Question (1):  If a particular submerged-arc
wire/flux combination does not conform to an SFA
specification classification, may one use that
wire/flux combination, and by what paragraph?

Reply (1):  Yes, by the provisions of QW-404.5
which requires an A-Number or the nominal chemical
composition of the weld deposit to be stated.
This composition may also be designated by the
manufacturer's trade designation, AWS
classification, or established procurement
documents.

Anyone can certify anyone to do anything. The validity of the certification is based upon the controls put in place by the organization certifying. The suitability of the controls put in place are validated by the performance of the individuals who have certified in accordance with that system.

A certified welding inspector is not a trademarked term as far as I know. An American Welding Society Certified Welding Inspector is.

If a certifying organizations system is auditable and suitable for the tasks/abilities being certified, then what is to say they are not efficient.

I have seen some things that make me go "hmmmm" when dealing with individuals who have certified in accordance with one of the largest welding inspector certification schemes in the world!

Just of course my opinion and not based upon me being "certified" to offer up opinions on such matters.

I think websters should add the following definition to the term certified. "One of the most abused terms in the welding industry usually signifying someone has done something witnessed or reviewed by somebody, usually for some amount of money, supported by some system deemed valid by some people"

Have a great day.

Gerald Austin

I have to second the statement "...beyond compare..." . The content, peer review, and desire to share is unmatched in ANY other welding related forum.

I have piddled with other online resources but really feel this is the one where the people who are truly interested in advancing the art and science of welding gather.

Gerald

I created a database years ago for inspection. Every inspection was entered. If I am tracking multiple Customers>Projects>PO>Line Items>Inspections I will ALWAYS want hard data. I can lookup today for every inspection I performed with the word "overlap" on an item to a specific customer, with a given ship date and provide a list in a few seconds. With pictures.

However, that extent may not be desired by everyone. When I did this, tablets and phones did not have this capability so I would either carry a notepad and transpose data at my next visit to the office OR bring my laptop in the shop.

I enter almost everthing in a database that I would ever want to lookup again.

There are plenty of other methods utilizing technology now too. Cameras with voice notes for images, ease of recording video etc.

It really gets down to your preferences and comfort with technology. I do strongly suggest archiving paper documents electronically. Flash drives are cheap and extremely tough. I have swam with and washed and dried more than one or two.

Good Stuff. I saw the article I think that went along with the presentation at http://www.lbyd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Best-Intentions-by-Robert-Whyte.pdf

Gerald

You may be right. I do think it will reduce the amount of penetration and I agree there is a point where "too little heat is too much heat". I have welded a few thin pieces with Argon and DCRP and the penetration was definitely limited.

If your material is thin, try adjusting your AC balance to Max Cleaning (+) . This may minimize the overheating of the puddle. In addition, if you are welding on a small piece of material, remember that once it gets hot, it melts quickly. Cooling your pieces to the same temp before welding each practice bead will help maintain consistent conditions for each bead until you begin to get "an eye" for what is happening in the puddle. The lack of ripples indicate the puddle is staying molten long and cooling down slowly. Try speeding up.

If your base metal is thinner or near the thickness of the filler metal things can be a little more difficult. Try the same settings on a thicker piece.

Gerald

That was my 1st thought.

Thanks to all for the info.

Looks like the 2 suppliers here in town won't sell cylinders outright. The largest cylinder they will refill that is customer owned is an 80. I think they have figured out that it's better to rent items out that essentially last forever.

Gerald

All of my machines are 64 bit so I don't even use these.  I have installed it in quite a few others with no issue.

An equal leg fillet weld will normally have a theoretical throat  .707*Leg Size .

However that is something designers decide. Not all welds are designed to be or need to be "Full Strength".

In some countries,  the fillet weld size is referring to the throat. That is NOT the case with AWS Welding Symbols.

Hope this helps

Gerald

Seems normal to me. If the weld sizes are specified by legs, then thats in the ball park. If specified by min throat it seems a bit much but still fine. The designer was the designer so I would check with him/her 1st.

If you are working with something that is sensitive to some overwelding you may need some face to face type help.

I only tried from one supplier when I was in Mississippi and they indicated they only rented bottles and sold gas. It was one of the ones you mentioned but I will check it out here.

Thanks

Gerald

So what is a good source for buying bottles outright ? Not sure about the vendor up here but that same vendor in Mississippi indicated they didn't sell them.

Never by an AI Agency and to be honest I have seen a wide variety of AI's between organizations. However that was 10+ years ago so maybe there is more consistency in training now I think. You absolutely cannot go wrong with Walt Sperko's class as a source to get you up an running in both basic and advance topics.

https://www.asme.org/products/courses/bpv-code-section-ix-welding-brazing-fusing

Other courses may be fine too.

Gerald

Attached is a spreadsheet I made for calculating gas costs of 2 vendors. The user can put input the values in blue.  I HAVE NOT fully proofread this but figured it may be of interest to someone or spur some ideas. I of course welcome anyone to straighten me out on any errors, fix the spreadsheet, and upload it again for all to use.

For PWPS- There is a limit to Maximum bead with for some processes (NOT SMAW)- See Table 3.7
For WPS qualified by Testing-Its not addressed as you see in the code unless impacts are required. The variable to be concerned with is heat input if it is addressed elsewhere on the WPS.

What says you cannot weave is the WPS, so essentially, the code does say you can't weave however it is easily remedied by revising the WPS.

Hope this helps.

Gerald

I know a Quality Manager for a Steel Fabricator that failed 2 or 3 times that I would love to have on my side when it comes to welding inspection, quality control, and code application issues.

He's taken the class 2x. But even before he went he was pretty sharp.

I was impressed and motivated by his energy.

Gerald

Great Info. I can relate to that somewhat. Not long after I got out of t he Navy I went to a place in Memphis that built some material handling equipment. He gave me a couple of 3/8" plates and told me to weld them uphill. GMAW with 75/25. I set the machine where I could control the puddle uphill, tacked the plates, and he gave me the go ahead. I welded part of the plate up and he stopped me. He indicated he needed to show me how to weld vertical. He proceeded to trigger the weld all the way up. I told him I probably wouldn't fit in well in that environment.

I don't mind working somewhere that the organization may not know the correct things to do. I just don't want them to force me to do them wrong.

Gerald

On that note I noticed the ASME certification programs coming up. Welding, Mechanical, NDE. Kinda Cool. https://www.asme.org/shop/certification-accreditation/personnel-certification/ande/whats-next-for-ande?cm_re=ANDE%20Partners-_-Left%20Navigation-_-Whats%20Next%20for%20ANDE

Gerald

Thanks for the comments Al. Your comments have been appreciated and give me another set of eyes to see the welding world with.

Have a good night.

Gerald

Are they the result of certification or lack there of is my point.  How does the US rank in weld related deaths in comparison to other countries I wonder? 

Has the number of weld related failures per welded product gone down since the inception of the CWI program ? If we have a problem then maybe we should look into a better system.  A weekly report similar to what OSHA generates listing failures would be a great training aid.

As with many,  my experience is limited and what I see only a small part of the welding world. You would think with ther high potential for death and loss of property,  much of this information would be shared with the common welder, inspector,  supervisor etc... Boy would that be a training aid.

Maybe a law requiring codes to incorporate the CWI program would really improve quality. I don't know. I have much to learn in these matters .

Have a good one Al.

Gerald

Al, that was easier for my brain to follow. :)

Brent,
You are correct about the possibility of pushing classes. I am all about teaching and making resources available to those t hat want to learn a little or alot.

Many of the instructors indicated a need to learn more about certain topics. A few mention the AWS resources, and other paid courses. I suggested that welding instructors form an organization that allows through networking, the sharing of information and practices with each other. Just think if there was a of instructors whom were willing to share their experiences, techniques, and resources to "further the art and science" of welding. .  I brought this up at the open forum discussion but no real response. And its possible the way I say things doesn't go over well in public.  But that is another topic altogether.

I too think that prescreening may be helpful. Maybe establish a baseline minimum proficiency by online testing. I don't know. And again, things aren't falling apart in the country because some guy allowed a welder with an ASME WPQ to weld on a D1.1 item.

Thanks for the comments

Gerald

Al,

Thanks for the comments. I do think certification is a good idea. Documentation signed by someone indicating that someone has met specific requirements is a commonplace occurrence. But certification and credentials can begin to lose their value when a large number of people have them and it appears to allow individuals to be validated that are incapable of performing many of the tasks associated with the certification.  My original post was concerned with the fact that someone suggested the certification program could be "improved" by mandatory class time. Yet in many cases I have observed (While Taking the Exam , and While Proctoring Years Ago), the majority of those who attended class seemed to struggle some. So the suggestion that making the class "Mandatory" struck me as a silly idea.

In my mind, one of the worst things you can do is teach someone the subject matter on a test, then give them the test immediately.  I think a testing and certification system that is suitable for the task/job is sufficient. The CWI  program has worked well for me. There is a wide range of knowledge held by employers as to what certification means. In welding, it means one thing for an inspector, another for a welder, and yet another for a SENSE certified welder. We could almost stand to have Certified Certification Inspector.

I propose nothing to replace certification, and I guess if I wanted to change it I should get on some committees. And though in depth interviewing as you describe is absurd, so is every little "stackable" credential that may come up for a CWI. One for welder Qualification, One for writing a Prequalified WPS for a carbon steel butt joint, reviewing a NDE reader Sheet, reading a project specification, verifying material, witnessing a PQR, and who know what else. Again, I'm not discounting certification, but it seems to be something that could get out of hand.

The question really is, “How far does one go and how much money is to be spent to prove ones knowledge and capabilities for the task under consideration?” I agree that the credential should a consideration when hiring someone to provide a service or to fill an employment opening. However, it is a recognized tool may overate, underrate or match an individuals potential.

I too am in favor of training. And even certification. But like all systems, a review may be in order. As far as I know, there are not tons of weld related failures occurring in the US that are the result of inadequate certifications. As you indicated there are many ways to learn. Forcing one method of learning is what I was originally concerned with. I fully support classroom training, I would just hate to become a second class CWI because I don't feel like paying someone to learn things that I learned from the welding handbook in the 12th grade.

I think there is a problem related to both individuals, employers, and agencies understanding what a CWI or Even a Certified Welder MUST be able to do, Might be able to do, and can Learn to do.

Again, I really like "certifications". And maybe even "Endorsements" to better document and verify abilities, but we need to make sure that when a system indicates someone has an ability, they have that ability. But it could also be perceived that just because an individual isn't proficient in one area, the whole individual is inadequate. Kinda like the statements I have heard from companies about a welder that couldn't read a tape measure. Though a desirable skill, I have worked with some guys I would pay top dollar for that only need a hood and gloves.

Have a great Day Al.

"Like any system of accreditation the CWI program isn't perfect. CWIs do make mistakes just as licensed engineers make mistakes and doctors make mistakes that are buried everyday. The human element is something that can't be overlooked. Any accreditation system that involves a human element is not going to be perfect. "

Very good point Al. I think with many things, there is always an individual element that can lead to a large variation in abilities. Accreditation may be given more "credit" than its due in some cases.

Gerald

Thanks Kent. But with experience only, it would have taken me years to be able to pass the exam. The study time that I put into it was based upon an interest in welding with no knowledge of the CWI program for most of that time. I do think some way to better confirm related experience would be nice. And maybe that is done now. Maybe someone goes over in detail what is on an application, makes a few calls, and sends the application on down. Or not.

My concern is a "Mandatory Course" would probably lead to a "Mandatory Paid Course" and thus be a burden to those who have dedicated many hours to  self study.

I think that  often times we organizations think of "certification" as a fix all solution for a system that doesn't work to begin with. I think testing and certification is a great way to get started,  but lets not depend on that piece of paper to assure that our employees are doing what is expected. Let them know what is expected, monitor their performance, coach them where needed, and move them up in responsibility.

My intent in the "Better pre-screening prior to testing" item was in relation to documentation of experience.

I don't know about now, but when I certified 1st time many years ago, the industry I worked in had few CWI's. Yet the industry prospered. However within that industry, all of the companies involved were required to have a documented quality control system that addressed many of their tasks. I think Certification is fine, but its never going to be the magic solution to assure knowledge and ability. Just another tool to help assure a minimum level of knowledge. Certification (Inspector/Welder or Other) is no replacement for sound screening of individuals and a well documented quality system that addresses qualification and training requirements.

Thanks for your response Brent. Not sure how the poll would go over. Figured I would try it.

Gerald