I think most people understand there is no such thing as a perfect test or test questions. Likewise, very few people have perfect recall. It is for those reasons and others that no test that I am aware of requires a perfect test score to pass.
As for the nature of people, be it sloppiness, laziness, stupidity, no CWI, PE, or welder performance test can account for those attributes of human nature.
At some point in time, our human failings catch up with us. It usually means loss of employment when the problem rises above a certain threshold. It holds true for welders, inspectors, engineers, doctors, and yes, both politicians and investment bankers.
Best regards - Al
It is my opinion that the test needs to be a minimum 80%. I agree the test questions can be ambiguous, and the plastic molds are not the best, but the I will disagree with you on the NDE portion. It should be important for the CWI to understand the basics of NDE. In fact, I believe it should be tougher. I've watched CWI's attempting to review a work package and blow right by a listed dwell time of 1 minute, scanning DB of 60, or worse, witnessing a UT in which the probe was not coupled, but slathered in couplant and report the test as good. Reviewing an RT film and saying it's good with a 5.0 H&D.
If they are faced with something they don't know, they cover with BS rather than ask.
There are some good ones out there, that do know what they are doing in all respects, but they are equaled in numbers by the kind I've described here.
There are some general weaknesses I've noted among the majority of CWI's
1. Understanding the need for proper lighting and vision. Looking at a weld in <50 fc or nearly in the dark, not understanding the significance of using an LED combined with mild color blindness, or looking at a weld from 50" away with "calibrated eyeballs".
2. Skewed T's seem to be a particular problem for them.
3. Not understanding the acceptance criteria for NDE, much less the method. (For the Non NDE background brand)
4. Weld symbols and drawings. That one never ceases to amaze me. Something as simple as reading column lines, elevation, and anything other than a basic fillet or butt weld symbol.
5. Understanding the ethical requirements of a CWI.
6. Proper report writing. I've reviewed reports that stated "good enough", "welder tested ok", and "Looked at 200' of weld, all ok" to name a few.
If it were mine to do, I'd put an extra emphasis on those 6, above and beyond the normal seminar criteria.
I would also like to see a better background check. Welding on fence post to the 'farm code' doesn't qualify someone for a CWI in my book.
My two cents worth in the hat,
Gerald
Gerald,
I do believe it is important for CWI's to understand the basics of NDE, but when the CWI certification process 'requires' their understanding by making it a part of the test what message does this send. They are still not qualified to judge the acceptability, or not, of NDE results, other than visual (I'm pretty darn decent at reading radiographs because as a welder I screwed up so many times but I ain't no radiographic interpeter), and they should not be institutionally encouraged, and test validated, to think that they can. Anymore than we can ask of them to evaluate engineering calculations though it would certainly be valuable to have some knowledge of such.
Even in this forum we have seen some serious ambiguity from people as far as what a CWI is and is not capable or responsible for.
Having said this, I can see where, admitting from my side, and critiqueing to yours, that either point could certainly run ad absurdum to which the CWI is simply a marketed VT II, or a Level III ND/CWEverything.
Of course, that would certainly solve your Farm Code guy problem because who the heck could possibly know all this stuff?
I've been in this field for over 30 years and I still get lost on half the stuff you talk about. :)
If you give me another 10 years or so I'll get most of it. :)
By CWI555
Date 06-30-2009 22:39
Edited 06-30-2009 22:42
I have to throw the flag on you Jeff.
"I've been in this field for over 30 years and I still get lost on half the stuff you talk about.
If you give me another 10 years or so I'll get most of it. " (says the fox) :-)
On a serious note:
I don't take it as "institutionally encouraged" or "test validated". However; at risk if getting fined by AWS I think there is enough of a kernel there to be of concern.
There are some CWI's who think they are automatic experts. Then again, that is true of any industry certification or college degree.
Many times a CWI is called upon to review a work package or project documentation. For this, the CWI doesn't need to be an expert, but they do need to be able to spot the obvious BS flags like 1 minute dwells, post penetrant dwell cleaning via hosing the test piece with solvent, Densities on film in excess or below required limits, MT on 300 series SS, Shearwave results with an FH2E, lack of calibration for UT, or any of the host of BS lines they may run across. (I've had all listed).
At those times a Good CWI without an NDE background is going to call in the calvary on the obvious problems. It's when they try to solve it themselves that they make a mistake.
As for who can know all this stuff (Al Moore) There are many out there that have a pretty good handle on most matters testing (Al). However, no one can know it all no matter how hard they try. I for one will continue giving it my all, but in the end, there is simply to much information to absorb for one person.
Then again, what do I know, Im just a couplant slinger.
Gerald
Couplant slinger? LMAO!!!!
Never heard that one before.
I'm just a dumbazz welder who one day was called into the bosses office and informed I was now the welding engineer. I'm still waiting for that point in time when I feel I have a firm grasp of what it is I am supposed to be responsible for.
As for the AWS testing regime I suppose we are not that far apart on approach. But my advice to the committee, and I have no anticipation they would need to solicit my advice (see above), would be to stay away from the 100% criteria. Especially in the environment of the seminar/test scheme. I've seen people drive themselves to exhaustion through the week of the seminar, seen subject matter discussed that is at best remotely related to the test, or the responsbilities of the CWI, the argument being we don't teach the test, that I just feel there needs to be some margin for error.
Increase the difficulty quotient of the questions? Sure. And I have no difficulty with the 80% standard.
JS55
I do not know anything about 100% test score requirements. I do not advocate it except for the new three question test,
-Q #1: Can you cause the moisture to ooze out of the pores in the metal using an Oxy Fuel or air fuel heating torch. 1) Yes 2) No
-Q #2: Can you cause the moisture to ooze out of the pores in the metal using an Oxy Fuel or air fuel heating torch. 1) Yes 2) No
-Q #3: Can you cause the moisture to ooze out of the pores in the metal using an Oxy Fuel or air fuel heating torch. 1) Yes 2) No
It is my position that if you get any of these three questions wrong on the new part four exam, you can never be a CWI.
Joe Kane