Jim;
I am sure your company is meeting the intent of SNT-TC-1A and in all likelihood, they exceed the minimum recommendations of SNT-TC-1A.
Its unfortunate that there are contractors that use the latitude allowed by the recommended practice to their advantage to reduce the "quality" of training and experience. It is because of the actions of a few that I (and others) distrust companies that say they meet SNT-TC-1A. Without reading their written practice, there is no way to know what they have established as their minimum requirements for qualification and certification. Is eight hours of UT training sufficient for someone to be a Level II UT technician that inspects groove welds (no previous experience or training required). I've seen it. Is it reasonable to certify an individual that has received training for UT thickness measurements to test welds without any additional training, experience, or examinations. I've seen it done under the auspices of SNT-TC-1A. How about certifying an individual as a Level II penetrant inspector after four hours of on the job training and experience? I've seen it done and I've seen the "certs" submitted to my clients for review and approval. It those abuses and others that has driven some of us to insist on Q&C to CP-189 or ACCP.
That being said, there's nothing in CP-189 that prevents a company adding to the training requirements. The company is free to provide more extensive training in areas that some companies considered to be areas of specialization. CP-189 simply set the minimum requirements for training, experience, and examinations.
The problem with SNT-TC-1A is that the training, experience, examinations, etc. are recommendations, not requirements. Its not that the document is "bad", it is that too many companies and contractors are unabashed in their liberal interpretations of meeting the recommendations of SNT-TC-1A.
As for the CWI, to my knowledge no member of the Certification Committee or AWS has ever said that the CWI is an expert in all visual inspection. QC1, like the CP-189 or ACCP simply provides a baseline that has been widely accepted as an industry standard for the qualification and certification of visual welding inspectors. That doesn't mean there is no opportunity to expand upon that baseline knowledge.
I've long recognized that taking a single AWS open book examination on D1.1 or API 1104 doesn't automatically make me an expert in using other codes or standards. I've attended many seminars offered by AISC, ASME, and AWS to expand upon the knowledge I needed to pass the CWI and SCWI examinations. I've taken endorsement examinations to demonstrate my working knowledge of ASME, API, and AWS welding codes and standards. Still, it doesn't mean that I'm an expert. It simply means that I've met some "standard" of knowledge that has been established as baseline requirement to ensure I have a working knowledge of those different standards/codes.
There is nothing in QC1, CP-189, or ACCP that prohibits a company from expanding upon the body of knowledge required to pass the examinations required under those programs. As a matter of fact, all those programs actually encourage inspectors certified under the auspices of their programs to broaden their knowledge by attending training courses offered by their respective organizations and others through their requirements for recertification. As an example; QC1 allows the CWI/SCWI to use endorsement examinations in lieu of taking the Part B examination over and over again. ASNT allows the Level III to use college courses in mathematics, science, engineering, etc. toward their recertification. The idea is to broaden the inspector's knowledge so they can better perform their jobs and improve their prospects for working in different industrial sectors.
Jim, this has been an interesting discussion. I've enjoyed every minute of it. As you can tell, I support "central certification". There is always the danger of it becoming too specialized which will simply cause all these programs to implode. I support the idea of a generalized central certification program and then I like the concept of endorsements to build upon the basic certification. I carry too many certifications as it is and I hate paying out more money every years to every organization that wants to birth their own "Golden-Goose". NFPA requires people that want to certify brazers for medical gas to attend their (NFPA) training course before you can test and certify brazers. API requires you to attend their training course before you can sit for their examinations to inspect oil tanks, the list goes on and on. I detest organizations that "require" you to attend their courses as a prerequisite to taking their certification examinations and I've resisted taking their examinations for years. ASNT and AWS offer the examinations to anyone that thinks they can pass them. You can self-study or take a class offered by your next door neighbor. I can buy into those programs. So much for my rant.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Best regards - Al