CAWI vs CWI Question

Date 08-10-2008 23:27

Duke

It is not unethical for a CWI, or even a CAWI to inspect bolting operations per se. The CWI program does not address it at all. It is not an "Unauthorized Practice".

In My Opinion, any CAWI that does Structural Steel and Welding Inspection with an ICC Cert, should surrender his CAWI. It is no good for anything anyway!!!! In my opinion, they are in ethical violation if they are working without supervision.

Joe Kane

By Boon

Date 08-11-2008 00:32

When we are dealing with issues like productivity and lack of manpower in some cases, I doubt any company would have CAWI inspect weld under direct supervision of another CWI.
In my opinion this is two men performing the job of one man. What inspection would the CAWI be performing that the supervising CWI cannot perform?

Boon

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 08-11-2008 00:40

Boon

What about the ASNT SNT-TC 1A trainees and level ones? Do you believe that the Inspection and Testing Labs all really provide the prerequisite training that is required for testing as a Level two? Do you believe that they really provide that training for the total required hours?

Joe Kane

By Boon

Date 08-11-2008 15:44

Joe

I am not familiar with ASNT or many other certifications and do not know if those are similar to AWS certification. Are you equating CAWI to Level 1 and CWI to Level 2?
CAWI is issued to those who just failed to make the grade for CWI whereas I understand in other trades Level 1 are separate courses and examinations. Only those who passed Level 1 can go on to take a separate course and examination for Level 2. Probably similar for higher levels after Level 2.

Back to my earlier opinion, I wonder if a Level 1 for ASNT must also be closely supervised by a Level 2 as in the case of CAWI / CWI?
What is the main difference in work scope for ASNT Level 1 and Level 2?

Boon

By 803056

Date 08-11-2008 17:34

In many cases (but not in all cases) the Level I does work under the direction of a Level II and in some cases the Level I can not accept or reject parts.

There are a number of standards and project specifications that limit what the Level I can do beyond what is included in SNT-TC-1A.

Best regards - Al

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-12-2008 15:08

Duke

A CAWI may inspect bolts. Bolting inspection is not covered in the AWS B 5.1. A person who is an ICC SSI-SWI who also has a CAWI is in violation of the COE unless supervised.

Joe Kane

By hogan

Date 12-12-2008 17:02

Joe,
some municipalities (larger cities) have a system set up where a CAWI with the ICC steel can inspect welding by them self. They are approved by the city for one year to perform welding inspection at a fabrication shop only.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-12-2008 23:07

Hogan

As I have said before, it is the responsibility of the CAWI to obey the Code of Ethics. The employer and the City can do whatever they want. The CAWI is in violation.

By jrw159

Date 08-12-2008 00:22

HgTX,
You are correct, if no cert is required, then a CAWI could do the job, BUT so could the guy that empty's the trash.

There is a reason for the use of the word "associate" :-)

CAWI = Your A** did NOT pass. OR Your A** is not eligable.

jrw159

By HgTX

Date 08-12-2008 21:41

That's my point. It's being claimed elsewhere in this thread that the CAWI has more restrictions on him than the guy who empties the trash because the CAWI cert comes with built-in limitations. I say those limitations only come into play where the cert is required to begin with.

Hg

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 08-12-2008 22:45

Hello guys,
Must admit I find it a bit strange myself.
For example, I can visually inspect a tank to API 650 with absolutely no qualifications at all but if I have CAWI certification it is prohibited.
Jon20013 mentioned in another posting that a specific companies "floor sweeper" could hypothetically sign off a Welder Qualification Certificate to ASME IX, yet apparently a CAWI is prohibited from doing this.
Even more confusing is "within visible and audible range".
If someone is deemed not competent to visually inspect welds on their own what difference does it matter if the CWI or SCWI is 6 foot or 600 feet away.Surely they would have to reinspect everything the CAWI had inspected before they signed something off as acceptable. If they have to do that then what was the point of having the CAWI inspect it in the first place.If they signed something off as acceptable without examining it themselves then surely that would be a breach of the Code of Ethics.
Why does AWS even bother with the CAWI, surely you are either a CWI or you are not ?
Regards,
Shane

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 12-10-2008 07:44 Edited 12-10-2008 07:47

Shane, I think Joe Kane made that point clear... the reason is simply one of revenue for AWS, that's why the program allowing CAWI's continues to exist.

Now then, maybe the more important question is why anyone who had this knowledge would actually pay for such a certificate?

It seems the poor CAWI has far less competance than an ASNT Level I although I see companies advertise for entry level inspector's holding minimum CAWI requirements from time to time.

EDIT: A hypothetical situation occurs to me; if a CAWI performs weld inspections and signs off for them BUT does not do so using the qualifications of his CAWI, i.e., listing his certificate number or stamp, then there is no violation, correct?

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 12-10-2008 11:54

I think it matters Jon

If I'm a CWI and make inspections... I am held to the code of ethics even if I never use my stamp eh?

How is a CAWI any different as far as that goes ?

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 12-10-2008 12:19

Well, I'm just not so sure Lawrence. The whole issue seems to revolve around what a CAWI may or may not do.

I'd like to get Joe's take though because I don't really think that simply holding a CAWI should force the holder to operate under QC-1 program, only if they wish to "certify" or assign their certificate number to some inspection, then I could see an ethics violation.

I'm sure your probably correct on this I'm just kind of playing devils advocate here.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 12-10-2008 12:52 Edited 12-10-2008 12:56

The CAWI seems to be a worthless cert for anything other than gaining the required experience to become a CWI.

I'm wondering if Joe or someone could elaborate on the correct way to use the CAWI in daily shop inspection for any of you guys who hold the CAWI cert.

Could the CWI that CAWI is reporting to also sign and acknowledge that he personally witnessed and oversaw the inspection that the CAWI is performing?...how else will the CAWI gain the neccessary experience to ever become a CWI without violating any code of ethics?

edit:...after browsing back up though this thread, it seems Joe has answered this....supervised by a CWI is all that is required....period.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 12-11-2008 17:16

I am to understand THAT as an official statement correct ?

If you interpret my questions as "quibbling" then so be it and please do refer this to whover you feel is necessary. So can a NON committee member not question the intent, meaning, interpretation of the almighty QC1 document ? Maybe again, I am not making any public staement of what the standard says, I am questioning the meaning.

I will tell you exactly what I think. The standard is vague, the document for indicating what can be done to someone in violation is clear. Nowhere but in posts here does any standard reference a CAWI "TURNING IN" his certification.

Again I have posted 3 previous CWI numbers and I can honestly say that if this is cause for an ethics violation I would very much enjoy the learning experience that I would have as I was "Investigated".

Is it my duty as a CWI to report all CAWI's I know that are in violation of this rule? I know plenty that are quality managers, engineers, Radiographers, UT Techs, PT Techs, etc that inspect welds every DAY.

So again, please make this clear one more time. That way when I refer some of those people to this post, they can go directly to your reply to assure themselves that they can no longer inspect welds in any way until they "turn in" their CAWI . And I assume that the "Turning In Pro cess" takes some time to complete as all of the proper channels, commitee members etc would have to review it etc.

Since you seem to be up on this. Can you tell me how to go abouot submitting a request for interpretation of t his issue in writing. I think I can find it online however I may not have the ability to fully understand what it is saying .

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-12-2008 01:20

Pipewelder

As I told you in the first post: My responses are my opinion.

Neither you nor any other CWI have any any obligation under the COE, to turn in CAWIs for violations of the COE. You are only obligated to abide by the COE in your own conduct.

THERE IS NOTHING VAGUE ABOUT THE "visible and audible range wording in the QC-1". People just don't want to accept that, and try to justify working in an unsupervised manner. I SAY that your scenarios for the CAWI working alone amount to "quibbling".

Of course you can ask all the questions you want. However, if you are going to make up scenarios and ignore what the QC-1 standard CLEARLY says, then you are quibbling or you are a river in Egypt. When you ask a question and answer it the way you want to hear it, don't pretend that is just asking a question. I call that "Quibbling".

There is no wording in the QC-1 that says they should turn in their CAWI if they want to continue to inspect welds and perform the other duties of a CAWI as stated in the B5.1 Qualification Standard. I think they have demonstrated that they could not pass the qualification examination and / or meet the other qualification requirements, and should stop inspecting welds, unless they are under the required supervision. If they continue to practice, they are in violation of the COE.

The QC-1 is clear. The only person who cannot inspect a weld is a CAWI, unless the CAWI is properly supervised.

Joe Kane

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 12-12-2008 13:54

I understand the visible and audible range ,though "shall be able" seems to have dual meanings depending upon the paragraph. What is unclear is when the QC1 standard applies. My "made up" scenarios are real world.

ASNT Level II RT techs, ASNT VT inspectors, Quality Managers, Inspectors with 15+ years experience. All of these people have failed the CWI test. I am SURE the comittee has records of job functions being performed etc prior to one taking the test. In the past , a quality manager I worked for failed the test. Yet he continued to inspect welds except in cases requiring a CWI. Should I have reported that action ? I think NOT . Even if he had been the janitor, I still had no reason to report.

The powers that be make it clear how much experience is needed to even take the test. Yet there are no indications that one who fails the test with a score adequate for CAWI has to take action (turn in their certification).

The core of my "quibble" is based upon whether the the provisions of QC1 apply when an individual is NOT performing inspection that are required to be performed by individuals that are certified in accordane with QC1.

Other quibbles are related to statements of what should be done in cases in which a person is a CAWI. Turning in certifications etc.. It is my opinion that a person working outside the scope of the QC1 document is not in violation of the code of ethics unless in some manner they are representing themselves as an individual qualified in some manner other than as described in the document. (A person having the ABILITY to perform inspections within the visible and audible range....)

Is there a form or procedure spelled out somewhere that is to followed for an individual to "turn in" his or her certification ?

You have referred to me answering my own questions the "..way you want to hear it,..." I am not sure what you are referring to. I have tried to clarify some misunderstanding regarding CAWI's . You have indicated you have some experience with writing the standard. I expeceted you to have the ability to answer some of the questions. And you have. You have also indicated that those are just your opinions. And thus my opinions are just as weighty (to me at least) until somehow these things you have stated "jive" with the written standards available or my inabilty to comprehend is done away with by the information provided by yourself or any of the other well learned individuals on the forum.

I appreciate your patience with my "quibbling" a great deal.

Have a good one,

Gerald

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 12-11-2008 18:03

Donnie

Also understand that the AWS CWI program is not the only method a company has of assuring the competence of their inspectors or the quality of their product. Most companies that are striving to do quality work will implement a set of quality policies and procedures to support those policies.

"..what can a CAWI do...." can be a difficult question to answer. In the context of the standard may mean one thing, legally (civil action etc) may be another. Since the cert is essentially useless maybe the best thing to do may be send a letter saying to AWS thanks but no thanks. I would definately NOT EVER put the fact that you are a CAWI on a resume since the official interpretation of that is that you cannot perform ANY welding inspection whatsoever regardless of contract requirements, company practices, your current position in the company etc.

I think it would be good for ALL people to understand that it is better to have NEVER taken the test than to acieve a score for a CAWI sice t hat will probably place a burden upon your company requiring supervision by a CWI or in the case in which a CWI is not available, you cannot do anything.

This policies may or may not require a 3rd party (AWS) to verify the knowledge of the inspectors. Understand that anyone can write a test, administer it, keep records of it, and have said requirements contained within their quality system. There is no need for AWS involvement however the AWS certificataion does seem to somewhat standardize the tests, question format, courses that are sold, etc.

The CAWI can do anything he is deemed to do by his employer however that may fall under a violation of the code of ethics as indicated by Joe who is or has been involved with the issue.

Based on the QC1 standard, if those ethics rules are violated then proceedings concurrent with the instructions in Administrative Procedures for Alleged Violations of AWS Certification Programs I imagine would be in order. I am not sure if this is the correct one as the QC1 standard does not call it out http://files.aws.org/certification/docs/cert3449.pdf.

If this "quibbling " is found useless to this forum please post a response to any of my messages with the word and I will consider deleting them. I apologize to all for using up highly valued web space and if it appears most people would like me to stop I will erase my posts. If ANY moderator considers these post not in line with the subject matter of the forum. Let me know. I will keep a record of them for my own use but will delete them as requested.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 12-12-2008 11:50

Gerald,
I agree wholeheartedly with your responses but as Joe has explained there are some people on the committee that apparently are loathe to remove it.
It is a quite confusing subject because Joe mentions in an earlier post that you cannot have an almost doctor or an almost West Point graduate but it appears to be OK to have an almost CWI,
Regards,
Shane

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-12-2008 14:45 Edited 12-12-2008 15:38

Pipewelder--Gerald Donnie

This is an excellent synopsis. Please do not delete the posts.

You have made several good points here about the need for a an AWS CWI in the first place. (...may or may not require a 3rd party (AWS) to verify the knowledge of the inspectors. Understand that anyone can write a test, administer it, keep records of it, and have said requirements contained within their quality system. There is no need for AWS involvement however the AWS certificataion does seem to somewhat standardize the tests, question format, courses that are sold, etc.)

Under the D 1.1, a person could perform inspection who was company trained. The training has to be documented. A company could develop their own "in house" training and certification program. It could use all or part of the AWS B 5.1 Qualification Document, and show that it followed a national standard. There is another AWS document (I cannot remember the Title and Number of it right now,) that provides guidelines and recommendations for "In House" certification of inspectors.

I disagree with your statement;
"(I think it would be good for ALL people to understand that it is better to have NEVER taken the test than to achieve a score for a CAWI since that will probably place a burden upon your company requiring supervision by a CWI or in the case in which a CWI is not available, you cannot do anything.)" How can that be valid? People who think they are ready have to take the exam to be sure?!?!? Don't they????

It would probably be a burden, as you describe, but the person can always decline to become certified as a CAWI, or just send the card and wall certificate back and ask to have the certification removed. The only reason to keep it might be erstwhile pride of ownership and accomplishment. Remember, there will always be a record in the AWS Certification Department. I am sure that in most cases, the original goal was to be a CWI. If the applicant is so dispirited by the failure that he / she will not study and retake the exam again, how will he handle the pressures associated with honest inspection practice? (OK- Maybe he will not be able to afford to re-take the exam.)

As for my term "Quibbling"; It appears to be "sticking in your Craw". I really do not mean to offend you with it. (If you ever went to a military academy or Officer Candidate School, or Flight School, there was an offense called Quibbling. When I went to flight school in the Army, Quibbling got you two demerits, which meant you had to do four hours of close order marching drill to get rid of the demerits. (All this marching had to be done in YOUR free time.) Quibbling demerits were usually dropped on you as soon as you started to say "But Sir...., or But I..., or What if..., Etc." If you started to object to the first two demerits, you got FOUR more!)

I used the term to describe scenarios in your posts, where you posed the scenario that also had your own answer to fit your expectation of a way of getting around the CAWI restrictions in the same paragraph.

It was not "Useless" to pose the scenario and even to propose what I call quibbling scenarios. I am sure a lot of people cannot accept that the restrictions on the CAWI are so total. But think about this; How can AWS protect itself and defend the CWI Program, if it allowed a person who did not pass the exam or otherwise meet all the requirements to practice welding inspection (Including all the attributes described in the AWS B5.1 Qualification document)?

Could the Certification Committee make exceptions? Yes, probably. However that would put a great burden on the Committee and require a lot of legal review and re-visit all kinds of scenarios and exceptions. It is much easier and more fair to just leave it the way it is. It would also clarify things by getting rid of the CAWI altogether. But when that option is debated in Committee, there are still real reasons to keep the CAWI, -YESSSSSSS-, even reasons that do not involve money for the AWS. (Remember AWS already got the money when the CAWI took the test, so money really, truly, is not the big reason the critics and skeptics think it is!)

The biggest thing that the Committee did to help minimize the risk the CAWI certification poses to the program is to limit to a single term. Those "Professional CAWIs" will fall by the wayside. The numbers of CAWs has already decreased. I agree with Carl Stacker that we should limit the CAWI Certification to those who pass at the CWI level but who otherwise do not meet all the education / experience requirements. However even this proposal will not eliminate the supervision requirement. The only true solution is to eliminate the CAWI altogether. I would not get enough votes in either the Subcommittee or in the Main Committee to get that Idea passed.

By the way, one problem with this string, is that the replies are not in the order that the posts were made. If I had seen your second post before I wrote my first response, the reply would have been different.

Joe Kane

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 12-13-2008 11:27

Joe,
I hold CBIP (Certification Board for Inspection Personnel) qualifications as a Certified Welding Inspector. These qualifications are issued in New Zealand and are only valid in New Zealand and Australia. The Australian equivalent is the WTIA Welding Inspector and Britain has CSWIP.
All three of these qualifications require documented evidence of experience prior to taking the examination, if you fail you fail, if you pass you pass.
I cannot get my head around the fact that you can sit an examination and pass but you are not a CWI because of lack of experience.
Why not do the same as the rest of the world and have the examinations after the experience is gained and then you do away with CAWI completely ?
Regards,
Shane