Joe,
As far as the test, pass, get your card, you are right. And AWS does not, at this time, separate between the different tests when you get your first card. Per their existing specs and standards, when you pass any of them you are qualified as a 'Certified Welding Inspector' and able to inspect to ANY of the codes. You should be able to take any code, look through it, and apply it to the project at hand. But, you will find that most people test to and work the majority of their time within a particular code that they learn very well and are very comfortable with.
What is being questioned, and the answers of previous posters is discussing, is the fairly recent direction AWS has taken by starting a system that allows you to test again after you get your first card as a CWI and get an 'endorsement'. The endorsement states you have actually taken and passed the test in a particular code. Then, if a given intity wanted an API 1104 inspector, your card would reflect that qualification. Same with all the other codes we can use (D1.1, 1.5, 1.2, 1.6, etc).
The originator of this thread has appearently been turned down for a job (or at least is wondering if others have been) because he did not have the proper endorsement for the inspections being requested even though this is not a mandatory thing and is of very recent conception. So, I had just suggested that someone had heard of this new endorsement option and with "limited knowledge" of how they perceived things, had insisted upon testing and endorsements to match the job specs for their job. Thus, my added comment that this could come around to 'bite' all of us because you will need more than one endorsement if you are regularly involved in inspecting to different codes. It will require more dollars, time, travel, etc to go to seminars, test, and receive multiple endorsements.
The advantage currently is being touted that people could tell what codes you are experienced in and you can save money by taking a test other than the one you already have in order to maintain your active, current status at your nine year re-certification (playing on egos that think that more paper, endorsements, certifications, etc make you more valuable. And to a degree it does). Since you have to test anyway, take a different test and get an endorsement. But, to follow this to it's logical conclusion, you will soon not be able to wait that long to take the other test. You would need it much sooner to get on a particular job. Then, at nine year re-cert you will still have to take a test that you already have.
Basically, it sounds like nothing but a plan to generate more money to me. And it keeps us busier trying to maintain more endorsements.
There may be some who would challenge this, but show me where my theory falls apart. Any time you start something like this, it only gets worse, not better. More involved, not easier.
Hope this helps you understand what the original question was about. Have a Great Day, Brent
It is my understanding that there are several DOTs that require third party inspectors to have passed either the D1.1 or D1.5 open book examination. It is my recollection this has been the case in Connecticut for at least the last ten years.
Prior to the endorsement program, a CWI that passed the API 1104 (or other code) had to take the entire CWI examination if he wanted to take a different open book examination (I know that from first hand experience). There was no mechanism to take just the open code book examination.
You have to be honest with yourself and ask the question, "Why would the DOT require their third party inspectors to have passed the D1.1 or D1.5 open book examination? Why wouldn't they accept API, 15.1 railroad standard, or other open book examination?"
To me the obvious answer would be they've had problems with CWIs that were not familiar with the type of work they were inspecting. While passing the D1.5 or D1.1 open book examination isn't proof the inspector is an expert on the subject of those codes, they are more familiar with them than someone that has never seen the bridge or structural codes.
I have encountered a similar problem in the field. The inspectors I encountered had passed the API, but they are inspecting structural steel and they had no clue what the requirements were. They didn't even own a copy of D1.1, but that didn't stop them from passing judgement on the steel they were inspecting. I don't know what they based their acceptance on, but it didn't slow them down and it drove the fabricator over the edge. Both inspectors were ultimately replaced.
You might ask the question, "Why didn't their employers provide them with a copy of the appropriate code?" That's a good question that I can't answer.
The bottom line is that our customers are becoming more educated and more exacting about what they want. As an employer I would give preference to the candidate that passed the D1.1 open book exam because I expect that person to be familiar with the structural welding code and the type of work I inspect.
I have long advocated taking the open book examination that most closely aligns with the type of work you expect to inspect. If you intend to work in the oil patch, then API 1104 is the examination to take. If you intend to inspect bridges, then I suggest you take the D1.5 open book. If you take API 1104 you should expect to encounter some resistance from potential employers that are involved in structural steel fabrication. Likewise, if you take D1.1 you can expect some resistance from an employer that is involved in oil patch work. When all the dust settles, it is the customer that determines what certifications we have to carry, not AWS.
If you intend to work on heavy mining equipment, why would you take a course in lawnmower engine repair?
Best regards - Al
I can see both arguments. On one hand (argument one) the original intent for the CWI test was to show ones competence with finding information in a code, using terminology and welding knowledge, from any code or standard. And on the other hand (argument two) I can see how jurisdictions and employers would require that the inspector have previously been tested to the particular code in use.
The problems associated with the first argument are that it is up to the individual inspector to take an active interest in reading and understanding the code to be used before work is started and not make mistakes overlooking important things. This is not beyond the majority of CWI's out there but there are those that do not take their job seriously and inspect work without making an effort to know the requirements of the code. This makes good inspectors look bad and can possibly endanger lives.
As far as the second argument I originally took my CWI 9 years ago with API 1104 for the same reason as most, it seemed easier and I was unsure of what industry I would be working in (turned out to be more than one or two for that matter). Even though I was tested to API 1104 I could not tell you anything about it 9 years later. I feel that unless you are using the code on a regular basis than it is entirely possible to lose touch. This is where I feel that argument one is the best way to approach being an inspector. You are always learning and relearning things and you need to embrace and seek out new or forgotten knowledge.
When the opportunity to take endorsement tests arose I promptly took the D1.1 and plan on taking the D1.5 as well as the ASME Sec 9/B31.1 & 3 sometime this year and next. I have worked with all of the above mentioned codes, except the API 1104 and feel I am a competent with each. The reason I have embraced the endorsements is that I feel that they are not going away and make me more marketable to a potential employer.
On the topic of welding inspection of structural steel and bridges in CA (where I work and live) I have noticed that half or more of the CWI's that I meet do not have a welding background and acquired their CWI for monetary reasons and form pressure from their employers (geotechnical testing labs, think concrete/soils inspectors) to have more certifications. Most of these guys that I have met are actually really good inspectors and take their job seriously. Although quite a few of them do not have a clue. I think the fiascos that result from bad inspection is what prompts jurisdictions (and rightfully so) to have the requirements of testing to a specific code.
For at least the last ten years our local municipality has required that CWI's have been tested to AWS to perform work on buildings. If I remember correctly this information is found on your score breakdown, part of the info received with your cert.
Al, while I am mainly responding to you, I want to first make a note to hogan and trapdoor.
Hogan, you are right. I grabbed my records of test results from the file and on the score breakdown page it indeed indicated that my particular test was taken with D1.1 (2002 -2006 ed). Would verify to someone that wanted to know which test had been taken even though it is not indicated on my card.
Trapdoor, some good points on both sides. Thank you for those.
Now, Al, I don't want any of this to come off too negative. I just have a SLIGHT problem (truly slight, not being sarcastic) with developing a system which, in my opinion, will bring about more time, expense, and hassle for some of the guys who do cross over into different codes on a regular basis. It may not appear that bad at present, I just feel it will take us down a road that will lead to many complications.
I understand and appreciate your examples and analogy about the heavy equipment with lawnmower training. And I know there are individuals as well as companies who will take on anything and send out whoever is available even if they haven't a clue as to what they are looking at. And I know the reasoning behind Gov't jurisdictions requiring experience in the particular field they are requesting inspection service in. Most of this can be done by one's personal resume/logbook/employer records, etc which would validate the experience needed. Why put people through more tests when they have already shown their ability to extract the needed info from the code and inspect the product accordingly?
Having said that, if an inspector showed up at the job without a copy of the code book required for the particular job, I would challenge his ability to do his job properly. We are not to memorize, we need to go to the book, especially if rejecting certain items, and be able to properly include all the needed information in our report along with clause numbers. That way we, the shop/fabricator, customer, gov't building authority, etc all know that the job was properly inspected to the requested code.
I, for one, take this job very seriously. There are VERY GREAT responsibilities to self, customer, fabricator, and public involved at almost all levels that pertain to public safety. And, being a person who on the welding end as well as in inspections has been mostly involved with D1.1 Structural, I would feel very uncomfortable getting a call and asking me to go out today and do a pipeline. I would want several days to go through code book (which I have), job specs, prints, etc. Don't like cold turkey inspection. Some small structural jobs can be checked with less time. It doesn't take long to go through some print packs, check the general notes to see steel requirements and inspection requirements, compare notes to IBC, AISC, and D1.1, then look over the job and make sure that everything meets the call outs on the notes from engineers and architects. Write up your report and you're gone. But big jobs are different. Everything has to be judged on it's own merits. No two jobs are ever exactly the same. I like time to get familar with everything.
I don't want to make this too lengthy. I just want to make sure my concerns are not misunderstood. And those being that I am concerned about the true motives behind adding of endorsements. It is basically the Building Authority having jurisdiction and the Customer who hires a third party inspector who is responsible to make sure the person doing the inspecting is knowledgeable and experienced in the particular job requirements that they want monitored. It should not be that difficult to do without adding a lot of testing and expense on our part.
Thank you to all three of you for your thoughts so far on this.
Have a Great Day, Brent
Giovanni,
Forum
