is it possible??

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 06-30-2009 12:37

You can pass the CWI exam without knowing many things. As long as you know at least 70% of the things.

In some cases people can "learn" a great many things to pass a test but yet have a hard time applying those things in real life.

By bert lee (**)

Date 06-30-2009 14:44

if you're a boss, will you employ them? someone who passed but don't know those basic things?

By jrw159

Date 06-30-2009 14:54

Bert,
You might be surprised at the many bosses that would. Some even specifically shop around for it. They are easily manipulated and you can get them to sign all kinds of stuff they have no clue about. I once ran across a CWI on a pipeline and he was certified 2 years prior to me getting certified. He worked solely on pipelines and did not even know how to use an internal hi-low gauge. This piece of work was trying to check hi-low with the root opening/bevel side.

It is sad to say, but they are out there.

jrw159

By bert lee (**)

Date 06-30-2009 15:24

will it be risky to hire someone that can be easily manipulated? what if there is a third party inspector? more rework and delay may happen...is it being practiced in USA?
i've seen new design of welding gauge that not easy to use in the begining unless you see the sketch demo on how to use it.

By jrw159

Date 06-30-2009 15:44

Risky? Yes. As for third party, generally when this is done there is no third party inspectors. Does it happen in the USA? Yes, just as it happens all over the world.

As for the weld gauge reference. This was a CWI that had been certified for 5 years working solely on pipelines.

http://www.thegangbox.com/c-6-gal-gage-co.aspx

Single Purpose Hi-Lo Gauge (English) Gal-2 is the one I am talking about. Second one down. Maybe I am to harsh, but I have absolutely NO respect for a 5 year CWI who has worked on nothing but pipelines and does not know how to use one of these. Hell he had never even seen one before.

jrw159

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 06-30-2009 15:05

Hard to say. I am pretty sure there would be need for more questions. I have seen cases of Incomplete Penetration, Incomplete Fusion etc in which the incorrect term was used. I still slip up and call horizontal fillet welds flat .

If I would base my decision to hire someone on one concept they don't understand or forgot from their "crash course", then I probably don't need to be in a position to hire someone.

I wouldn't hire someone just because they PASSED a CWI exam nor would I NOT hire someone if they had not provided if being a CWI was not part of the position.

Though not knowing some basic terms would be a concern, an experienced individual would be able to select employees based upon various knowledge and abilities. Not knowing some basic terms would be an indication that maybe some indepth questioning were needed.

If after further questions I realized t he individual did not have the core knowledge needed to fill the position then regardless of what "CERTS" they carry, they wouldn't be suited for the job.

there are many things that make up a good inspector those things may vary from company to company they coul include the ability to right reports or express thare thots with the ritten word or solve problem or understand specs or use the aws standard terms and definitions or know that 3g is vertical but that vertical is not 3g or that gmaw makes welds that fail unless you use a special gas and so on and so on. :)

But in some cases (the saddest cases imo) they just need to be "CERTIFIED".

By jrw159

Date 06-30-2009 15:12

Another unfortunate thing to consider is this. Sometimes the person responsible for the hiring is a person from HR who really has little clue as far as what to look for while screening inspectors. All they know to look for are those three letters "CWI".

jrw159

By 803056

Date 06-30-2009 15:38

Many good points have been made.

The CWI examination, like any examination, is a "spot check" of an individuals understanding of the subject matter. There is a reasonable limit to the number of questions that can be asked within a reasonable time frame at a reasonable cost.

As mentioned, a passing score of 72% means the individual didn't have a mastery of 28% of the subject matter. The written fundamentals examination attempts to ensure the individual has a basic understanding of subject, the open code examine attempts to determine if the individual can navigate a code and look up answers, and the practical exam tries to determine if the individual can evaluate welds using basic inspection tools. The bottom line is the individual doesn't have to score 100% in order to pass the examinations. Along with the written examinations is the requirement the individual have some prescribed level of education and related work experience. If there is a weak link in the system, those two items are most problematic because the system depends on the applicant being truthful in providing the required information on their application.

The CWI is a baseline certification that simply ensures the individual has the basic knowledge and experience to perform visual welding inspection. It doesn't establish the individual as an expert in the field of inspection. That comes with additional experience and study. By the time the individual is considered to be an expert he or she is close to retirement age. I'm sure the individuals being questioned in this case will mature to be good inspectors if given the opportunity.

As for LOP and LOF, I had to ponder what those letters meant. I work with AWS standards and those are not standard terms in "our" lexicon, but they are perfectly acceptable in API work.

Look at me, I'm still learning. I've been involved in welding for nearly fifty years and I'm still learning something new everyday.

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 06-30-2009 15:44

"Look at me, I'm still learning. I've been involved in welding for nearly fifty years and I'm still learning something new everyday."

Some days are such a comprehensive learning experience I am confused as to whether I am actually getting more ignorant or just feel like it.

By 803056

Date 06-30-2009 16:20

Maybe I'm not learning something new, it's just that I don't remember!

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 06-30-2009 16:37

Unlike you Al, I am not near old enough to have encountered everything I am exposed to each day. :)
This is my logic and I'm sticking to it.

By bert lee (**)

Date 06-30-2009 15:59

i heard an exam for CWI (i'm not sure if it's AWS or CSWIP) that if you fail to identify those serious defects, no matter how high you score...you are consider fail.
this is the reason why i asked.

bert

By 803056

Date 06-30-2009 16:18

Each question in a part of the CWI carries the same weight. In other words there are 150 questions in the Part A examination, so each question is worth 0.667 points. If there are 50 questions on a second part, each question is worth 2 points. The CWI is a three part examination, each part is scored separately and then a composite score is calculated by adding the three test scores together and dividing by three.

There are some people on the committee that are of the opinion there should be one part of the examination that requires a score of 100% to ensure certain basic subject matter is mastered. I'm not sure that will ever be the case, but I see some validity to their position.

Best regards - Al

By js55

Date 06-30-2009 16:33

I would suggest that before members of the committee go expecting perfection of others they first require it of themselves.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 06-30-2009 17:06

Please elaborate.?.?

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 06-30-2009 17:18

LOL.....oh boy.

By jrw159

Date 06-30-2009 17:20

:-)

By js55

Date 06-30-2009 17:34

Joe,
I understand the need to make a more stringent testing process, isn't that already happening? But I believe there should be a limit. 100%?
How well would the now accomplished CWI's and/or committee members have done at 100%.
Wouldn't it be better to encourage improvement as opposed to slappin em down out of the gate.

Also, the test process itself is not perfect. The plastic moulds can be troublesome, the questions ambiguous, the questions also sometimes have little to do with the responsibilities of the CWI, for example PT or UT interpretation. Its good to know but I don't want a CWI reading bleeds or A scans.
I also think that the fact that there is accomodation for protest, a good thing, in the test format itself would admit to this.

One more thing. It is my belief that the biggest problem with CWI's in the field is irresponsibility not whether or not they mismeasured undercut, miscounted porosity, or overlooked a note in the test.

By 803056

Date 06-30-2009 18:38

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

By CWI555

Date 06-30-2009 20:37

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

By js55

Date 06-30-2009 21:02

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) :-)

By CWI555

Date 06-30-2009 23:15

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

By js55

Date 07-01-2009 12:49

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.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 07-02-2009 02:05

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

By js55

Date 07-02-2009 08:12

Joe,
:)
OK. I'd have to agree with that one.

By CWI555

Date 07-02-2009 11:53

Ummm unfortunetly, I've seen that one time to many. You'll fail half of them on that question.

By jrw159

Date 07-02-2009 12:24

Bright and early on a Thursday morning I get to clean coffee off of my monitor and out of my keyboard. I almost fell out of my chair.

Thanks Joe. :-)

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 06-30-2009 19:49

As far as CWI exams go.. The test question writers are already out of control..

I think the committee men and bootcamp/seminar instructors need to sit for the exam from time to time to have a better idea of exactly what is going on. Not questioning the things they cover.. But if there are bad test questions (and there are) these are the folks who may be able to go up the chain and get things fixed.

Several have, and were shocked at what they discovered.

Don't you big fish get all mad at me... But when the exam comes to your local section... Just go sit for the test (especially the code book)

I'll wager a steak dinner nobody comes close to 100%

By CWI555

Date 06-30-2009 20:38

Define "close" and I may take you up on it.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 06-30-2009 22:57

I'd buy you a steak just for the privilege of your company.

:)

By jrw159

Date 07-01-2009 00:45

I will buy both of you dinner just for the privilege of being able to listen and learn.

jrw159

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 07-01-2009 06:24

I will let you buy me dinner as an offer for my company :)

3.2

By CWI555

Date 07-01-2009 16:29

Lawrence, jrw how about we gather up a few more pick a place and throw a BBQ instead.

By jrw159

Date 07-01-2009 17:00

Sounds good to me!! :-)

jrw159

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 07-02-2009 02:07

Members of the Certification Committee are often told to take a BETA Exam with no prior notice.

By CWI555

Date 06-30-2009 20:43

I believe that CSWIP and IIW.

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 07-01-2009 00:54

Not sure about IIW but CSWIP is 70%.
Regards,
Shane

By Joey

Date 07-01-2009 05:27

I met many Inspectors of different nationals in QC Dept when i was working in Kuwait. If your CWI performance is substandard. People tend to ask “where do you take your CWI?” I wonder if there is a loophole when taking this CWI in other countries?

Regards
Joey

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 07-01-2009 06:26

I dont think there is...
Not sure about the AWS, but both CSWIP and API has the same examination requirements worldwide.

3.2

By Joey

Date 07-01-2009 08:11

3.2

I also do not believe but curious on why people in construction tend to ask especially if the color of your skin is dark.

"Not sure about the AWS"

fyi, Walter Herrera of AWS is our invigilator when I took my CWI exam in the early 90s.

Regards
Joey

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 07-01-2009 09:16

Joey,

Well, I have never asked that question myself as I dont care of inspectors color of skin.

BUT (this might get me in trouble here) Inspectors from certain country's tend to have a more relaxed way of inspecting, and theese very same inspectors also tend to have a darker color of skin.....wait, there is more.....Plant owners from theese country's tend to get inspectors from US/Europe when filling positions for inspection manager vacancies.

The above is not 100% my own experience (but I agree to have seen the same pattern myself), but what I have heard from fellow inspectors worlwide.

I might also need to mention: I AM FINE WITH ANY COLOR OF SKIN, AND PEOPLE FROM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD :)

3.2

By Joey

Date 07-01-2009 09:44

3.2

I agree, aside from a darker color? do they have a distinctive body odour :)?
maybe I know who these same inspectors your are reffering :)

By crashproj (*)

Date 07-01-2009 10:28

joey,

I agree, most of them are dark color and have pungent body odor....:)

By crashproj (*)

Date 07-01-2009 10:23

especially if you take your exam in India....I think there is a loophole in India.

By CWI555

Date 07-01-2009 12:58

The short version of IIW
http://www.ewf.be/media/guidelineShortDocs/doc_5_iab_041r3_08_iwip-sv-rev0.pdf

After a rewiew, I find you are correct for the CSWIP, it is 70. It is also for the IIW.

IIW IWIP certs are a bit overkill in my opinion. They focus to much on the engineering side. Most likely why they can't get off the ground for over all international acceptance.
They are attempting to remediate that via a move towards ISO 9712, but I don't see them ever playing a major roll internationally.

CWI/CSWIP in my experience have the market cornered. I've only ever run across 2 IWIP personnel and neither was very impressive.

I was surprised to find none of the above requiring 80%. I stand corrected on that one.

Least anyone think a CWI is somehow lacking, I've seen similar dismal performance levels out of CSWIP's and the two IWIP personnel in particular.
No one certification program has a corner on incompetance.

Regards,
Gerald

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 07-01-2009 13:15

Holding a CSWIP 3.1 automaticaly leads to IWI-B (Basic) and a CSWIP 3.2 leads to IWI-S (Specialist)
None of the IWI certificates are very much asked for, it seems that nobody is aware they exist *LOL*

However, the IWS/IWT/IWE which is the same as EWS/EWT/EWE is all rock solid courses, which is in high demand.

3.2

By CWI555

Date 07-01-2009 15:45

Well, Obviously somebody is aware of it as I quoted it. The IWS/IWT/IWE are to my knowledge the domain the EU. Their market is limited, but for their market they are in high demand as you say. When you say "lead to" you mean reciprocal do you not?

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 07-01-2009 17:04

Yes "reciprocal" was the word I was looking for.

3.2