Can you give us information about diameter and thickness of the object?

3.2

From the ASME code case 2235-9:

note 1

1 Sectorial scans (S-scans) with phased arrays may be used for the
examination of welds, provided they are demonstrated satisfactorily in
accordance with para. (c). S-scans provide a fan beam from a single
emission point, which covers part or all of the weld, depending on
transducer size, joint geometry, and section thickness. While S-scans
can demonstrate good detectability from side drilled holes, because
they are omnidirectional reflectors, the beams can be misoriented for
planar reflectors (e.g., lack of fusion and cracks). This is particularly
true for thicker sections, and it is recommended that multiple linear
passes with S-scans be utilized for components greater than 1 in.
(25 mm) thick. An adequate number of flaws should be used in the
demonstration block to ensure detectability for the entire weld volume

While that is primarily for section I/Section VIII etc, the warning is still applicable.
I do agree with UT however; PAUT is very very operator skill dependent for all systems I've seen to date. A good operator and a bad one both can make it lie either by ineptitude, or by design.
On the other hand;
When used properly, by properly trained and experience technicians, it is by far better than RT.

If your work is a pipeline, I would suggest TOFD AUT rather than PAUT as it's been around longer, and has more experienced operators/companies available.

There are other options for RT as well, CR radiography can usually be performed with boundaries reduced by at least 1/2 when using selenium.

Tell us what the specifics of your project are, and we can give you a more specific answer.

What kind of project, and what code are you working to?

We recently allowed this substitution, sort of, but we didn't do it by code, we did it by demonstration and acceptance.  We had them do RT, UT, and PA and compared the results, and when we were satisfied that they could at least tell whether or not there was a discontinuity, we allowed them to use PA (with UT to supplement for transverse flaws because this particular PA equipment could only scan normal to the weld) to tell whether the weld was clean.  If they found something, though, we made them go back to RT and conventional UT to evaluate the flaw.

Hg

In AWS D1.1 Part G.
May be used as an alternative to other methods outlined in Parts D, E or F.
6.36 AUT for example TOFD and PA in lieu RT.

Best Regardss.

I've been following this thread with interest, and note some people are playing with the rating system. For a thread of this nature, I believe it is more harmful than good to allow that.

The question you asked deserves a more professional response than someone playing games with the ratings. If I were in your shoes, I'd be concerned in regards to the validity of the responses based on the ratings.

Your concerns are realistic in regards to radiography. Everyone who has posted as of the date and time of this post, have posted valid questions/comments.

3.2 asked about your thickness and diameter. To thin, or sockets (you've not specified what your project is requiring) and you've got to go with something different.
Richman has posted info on an interpretation for B31.1
The same for NDTIII, and jon2003.

All of those post are valid.

Dayanora posted info for structural concerns.

Over all, I see no post that warranted a rating of 1, or a 2.
This faceless ratings has gone on long enough. It either needs to be stripped in it's entirety, or require the person rating it to be recorded for all to see.
I don't always agree with this one or that one, but to slam them anonymously via posting a low rating for no other reason than attitude is simply wrong.

My opinion for what it's worth,
Gerald