New welder qual standards?

Date 05-29-2009 12:54

hvymax
I think you may be referring to the test supervisors at accredited testing facilities. That person will probably soon have to go through a course at AWS, and get certified. However, this does NOT apply to the ordinary testing done outside of an an AWS Accredited Testing Facility.

There is a feeling in the Certification Committee, that there are a LOT of CWIs out there conducting tests, who do not have a clue, and who cannot even fill out the forms properly. I myself see the need for some training, or at least some testing on the subject being included in the exam, or perhaps for renewal.

What you heard may be misconstrued as suddenly depriving the CWI of something you always could do. There was a lot of concern in Certification Committee debate, because the very name that they were going to call that certification would be misconstrued by the public to imply that the CWI needed a separate qualification to conduct Welder Performance and Welding Procedure Qualification Testing. A Motion was passed requiring the Subcommittee to change the name to something that could not be misconstrued that way.

This will be required as part of the Quality Control procedures for AWS ATFs.
Joe Kane

If you have seen something in writing, please send me a copy, so I can keep an eye on it.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 05-29-2009 14:49

Mr. Kane,

You stated above "...This will be required as part of the Quality Control procedures for AWS ATFs. " Does that mean that the requirement currently stated in the QC4-89 is going to be changed .

(2) Welder qualification tests that are performed by
an Accredited Test Facility for the AWS Certified
Welder program shall be administered by a Test Supervisor
who is currently certified as a CWI under the AWS
Standard QC 1.

That will of course add another "requirement" for someone who is looking for a job that has probably in the past performed quite well at this task. Shouldn't the CWI program as a whole already have this as an area of knowledge suitable for ANY testing. In addition it would change the appearance of compliance for those that are already ATF's with CWI's that are not somehow documented as "Test Supervisors".

It just seems the CWI program will continue to mean less and less if "extras" are always needed to assure a CWI is qualfied for a job.

Will the wording or requirements in 5.3 Para 2 of B5.4 be changed any ?

Thanks

Gerald Austin

It just seems the "endorsements" could always be expanding depending on how the "debates" go.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 05-29-2009 18:51

Gerald

I do not know the answers to all your questions.

I do not have access to the documents you quote.

As I understand it, there will be a change to QC-4, where ATFs can branch out and have specially qualified CWIs perform AWS Welder Qualification testing away (outside of the actual facility) from the facility (Qualification for the AWS Certified Welder Program) and send the coupons into the ATF for processing and evaluation.

At first they were going to call this a "CWI Qualifier", but myself and others thought that as soon as the specification writers for the "end users" (Not CWIs, but DOTs, DSAs, Building Departments, Railroads,ETC.) heard that there was a new certification out there for specially trained CWIs who could administer welder qualification tests, they would begin to incorporate that requirement into their contract boilerplate. EVEN THOUGH IT ONLY APPLIED TO THE ATF CWIs!

So, that is the reason for the big flap over the name.

I believe that the ATFs will buy into this change, because it will enable them to branch out all over the world. Any CWI (who was properly qualified) could call the ATF, and tell them he wanted to test some welders through that ATF, and they could just handle the coupons and the final paperwork. To do this you have to have some way of standardizing how the test is given, ETC.

If you saw some of the garbage welder qualification paperwork that I have seen in the last ten years or so, you would agree that some kind of standardization is really needed.

You said; "It just seems the CWI program will continue to mean less and less if "extras" are always needed to assure a CWI is qualified for a job."

You are right! That has already happened! In some cases the end users are forcing the changes, and in some cases it is the competition. That is one reason I came up with the endorsement program. If these "Extras" are needed, you have the option of getting the extra. If you do not need the extra, you do not have to get it. If enough people go for the "Extra", we will eventually have to incorporate into a Qualification and Certification program.

I would like to see the AWS do away with the "Fill out the paperwork and just send in your money and more money and more moneymeoeymoneymoney!!!" type 3 Yr. renewal and 9 Yr. re-certifications, and require everyone to take a test on some "Core Ability" listed in the B-5 document, in order to renew. For Instance, you could be required to test on "Conducting a Welder Qualification Test" for your first renewal. For your second renewal, you might take a test on "Conducting WPQR Testing" and so on.

If AWS doesn't modernize the CWI program we will loose even more of it to the competing programs out there, such as API.

Joe Kane

By 803056

Date 05-29-2009 20:17

Add NADCAP to the list Joe.

Al

By hvymax

Date 06-05-2009 22:31

It would make life easier if the forms and procedures for most official functions were standardized and easily available to make performing and filing these things much easier. Another change we really need to implement is cert renewal. We need to make it more like renewing your drivers liscense where you have a window to renew by instead of a single day. It is almost impossible to get everything done in one specific day each year and renewing earlier and earlier each year and trying to keep track of the ever changing date. It seems like every other year they tell me I have lapsed and I have to pull out my cancelled checks and copies of my paperwork to prove that if there was an error it was not mine. WE REALLY DO NEED TO CORRECT THIS CLUSTER PROCEDURE. sorry about the rant toodles John B.

By hvymax

Date 08-24-2009 23:37

Just got my test supervisor/ facility rep credential. I think the only thig left is weld manager but I will have to wait 2yrs for that. I got them through the ITI which is the program the AWS is emulating to get a handle on the QC4/QC7 issues. It is an eccellent program and what I have learned will prove invaluable in my adminisration and interpretation of welding procedures and tests. Now I will wait and see if I get any extra work out of it. John B.

By Arctic 510 (**)

Date 08-25-2009 00:50

If it has been identified that many CWIs are lacking in certain areas, why not tighten up the test a notch or two? Make it tougher in those areas than it is now. Require tough re-cert tests in the areas where weaknesses in the field as a whole have been identified. I do tenatively agree with requiring recert tests -of some sort- depending on how the program was structured.

I dislike the idea of many endorsements, I agree that it cheapens the cert. API has branched out quite a bit in the past few years, adding several "supplemental" certifications to "enhance" one's value. My question is, why are there API 510, 570, or 653 inspectors who are not already fairly well-versed in metallurgy, welding, damage mechanisms, and the RBI process?!!! Having special endorsements available may eventually, in my opinion, lead to them being required. Charging several hundred bucks a pop for various endorsements and periodic re-certs says "moneymoneymoney" to me very loudly.

Following that line of thought, how are people passing a CWI exam who don't understand welder qualification paperwork??!! (I think the two week "shake and bake" courses have a lot to do with this, just look at recent threads where some are blaming their course for failing...)

I don't want to sound negative here, I am just wary of having to send in re-cert dues for too many certs or endorsements. A welder who qualifies and is certified to weld pipe may have passed a test in a shop. That doesn't mean he/she can go into the field and perform well in the rack overhead, upside-down, bent rods, etc. I think all could agree that requiring "endorsements" such as (exaggerating here) "30 feet in the air endorsement" "boss standing there waiting on you to finish" endorsement, "from a bouncing manlift basket endorsement" would be ludicrous. If the welder doesn't perform, his cert is eventually pulled, and down the road he/she goes.

So how can AWS test a CWI's performance? Maybe through re-testing.... But again, how? Make people travel and foot a large bill for a proctored exam? Do it online, API style? More questions! I think that if there is concern about CWI knowledge, the place to start is to tighten up the test.

Just some ideas, I don't have all the answers! (Not even a lot of answers...sometimes not even any answers!)

What do you think about my thoughts, Joe (and others)?

By kipman

Date 08-25-2009 12:50

Justin,
There has been and will continue to be a lot of debate on this issue. I have made my opinion known (I believe I see eye to eye with you on it). I think I can also answer some of your questions. For example, you ask how someone can pass the CWI test without an understanding of welder qualification documentation. Well, the candidate has only to achieve a minimum 72% on each of the three parts of the CWI exam. As each part of the exam must cover many aspects, there are not that many questions about welder qualification. In fact, I am certain that the candidate could answer incorrectly all of the questions regarding welder qualification and still pass the test (providing of course the candidate did well enough on the rest of it). Seventy-two percent is not a particularly high bar.

The fact is that AWS will never be able to certify an inspector's total competence. Your welder examples (e.g. bouncing manlift) are excellent analogies. A CWI test, like a welder's test, will simply tell you if the person has the minimum skill set to qualify to do the job - it won't tell you if the person actually can do a good job day in and day out (maybe the welder can't weld left-handed with a mirror like we need, or maybe the inspector doesn't know enough about the code we're using on this job). I believe that AWS QC1 states this very well where it describes the employer's responsibilities to ensure that a CWI under their employ "...is capable of performing the duties involved in his/her particular welding inspection assignment".

I believe that code book endorsements simply give the employer (or other responsible party, such as the owner, regulatory authority, etc) a lazy man's way out of doing their due diligence - "Oh, I see that CWI Richard Head here has passed a test on AWS D1.1. That's good enough for us!!" Of course they never bother to verify Richard's capability by other means so never discover that he tested 8 years ago (and since then there have been 4 revisions) and that he only got a 72% grade and that he has only used D1.1 for 6 months out of the last 8 years. I'm not sure about you, but if I knew all that I would come to the conclusion that I wouldn't be able to simply hang my hat on that code book endorsement.

And this gets me back to your question about a CWI who doesn't understand welder qualification paperwork. If I am an employer or owner or government regulator and I am looking at employing/approving a CWI for duties that will be primarily related to welder qualification, I need to make sure that person can handle it. In fact, if I am an employer of CWIs, AWS QC1 at paragraph 1.4 tells me it is my responsibility to do so. If I know that a person can get all of the welder qualification questions wrong on his/her code book test and still pass, then that code book test should mean nothing to me and I should use other means to ensure that CWI is capable of performing the job.
Mankenberg

By Arctic 510 (**)

Date 08-25-2009 18:36 Edited 08-25-2009 18:55

I think we do see eye to eye. The certs mean one meets the minimum requirements... on-the-job day-to-day competence is (as you stated) the employer's responsibility for a CWI, just as it is for welders. There's no way for AWS to control this, after the exam is passed. AWS is no more responsible for a lazy/incompetent CWI than a test facility is for a welder who passed a 6G pipe test but can't do his/her job when put out in the field under real-life conditions.

If CWI competence/quality is a concern, it seems like the initial exam is a good place to start. Break it out into more categories with minimum pass scores maybe? I agree that one could pass the exam with little to no knowledge on welder qualification documents (even then you have a 25% chance of guessing right!). That seems a bit odd, doesn't it? I agree with your statement that such a test would mean nothing to me, if I were engaging a CWI involved in such documentation.

AWS-
Please don't de-value my CWI credentials by introducing new "supplemental endorsements" that give companies a warm and fuzzy about someone before they have done due diligence in evaluating a CWI's knowledge/experience, and imply a lack of knowledge if one is without them. I understand that this is not the intent, but I can almost guarantee that will be the result.

Edit-
I understand that the endorsement in question here only applies to AWS ATFs, I guess I may be applying the slippery slope argument here. Once CWI competence is questioned by implication (via an endorsement requirement), the floodgates may be opened, so to speak. Fix the initial test, fix the re-certs, but I (for whatever it is or isn't worth) oppose endorsements that cover something we as CWI should already know.

And understand, of course, there will always be those who are just really good test-takers, who can pass a test after some home study and/or a shake-and-bake course, with little to no knowledge of what the job really entails. There will always be those.

By js55

Date 08-25-2009 20:21

Its interesting, we have another thread that talks of degreed welding engineers. OSU is a top notch university and they have a superb welding engineering curriculum and many graduates, many of which I can sincerely call freinds, are brilliant. And yet, they still graduate morons from time to time as welding engineers. This is not a critique of OSU. Not at all. It just happens thats all. So how tough would it be for AWS to eliminate morons with a seminar and a single test. Not matter what, it will still happen. :)

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 08-26-2009 00:21 Edited 08-26-2009 00:26

Arctic 510

Justin. I have proposed eliminating the "Pay your fee three year renewals" of the CWI Cert for a long time. I do not even get a "Second" to the motion when I bring it up in the QC-1 Subcommittee meeting. Last month, I proposed it informally because the Certification Committee was making a recommendation to the Qualification Committee that they needed to update the B5 document. I proposed that we could give a drawings reading exam for the first renewal, and WPS / WPQR / WQR testing at the second renewal. I also proposed that we eliminate the options for nine year re-certification via the CEU/PDH, or Boot Camp, or Endorsement routes. I didn't get anywhere. If I had my way you would be hearing nothing but how I was trying to gouge the inspectors so that AWS could get richer!

The AWS is married to the two hour "Multiple Guess" test routine, and the economic ramifications of changing it will not fly in my lifetime. Remember the AWS needs to make money on all certification programs. The programs have to follow national standards and test methodology, or the AWS could be successfully sued. Although AWS needs to make money to run the certification programs and it's other operations, the Certification Committee itself wants first and foremost, have professional programs. The Certification Committee puts making money somewhere down around fifth or sixth place. As you can imagine. the "all volunteer" committee has a lot of high caliber talent and opinions as how this should be done. In the end that is where the "Minimum Consensus" process shines brightest. All the "Egos" get balanced out by all the anti-egos, and a middle of the road minimum consensus is reached for the final document.

( A minimum consensus document is one where all the proponents of a document get together and argue what should be in it. In the end, after all the arguments, the members all sign a document that is the most compromise they could stand for and agree on! No one is really happy!)

Last month, I tried once again to get us to vote on eliminating the CAWI altogether. I had a Second, but when the seconder found out that his agenda item was not included in this motion, he withdrew his second, and my motion died. No, it was not really "Politics",and not really "Ego". I knew I had an up-hill battle for that idea.

I agree that the shake and bake courses are to blame for a lot of people passing the examination, who do not really have all the experience specified B5.1 document. I do not see any practical way of stopping it. The idea of making the examination more comprehensive is the best way, but the test would then take four days and cost $2000.00 more!

I disagree with you completely on the "Endorsements". I am the father of the "Endorsements" idea. My not so humble Ego thinks it is the greatest idea since sliced bread! Sorry! (Well, NO; Come to think of it, I'm not sorry!!!!) If the endorsement availability results in the endorsement being required, I am all for that too. I saw the D1.1 and D1.5 endorsement being required well before AWS gave out the first examination! It was one of the reasons I proposed and worked for the idea so long.

I think that renewal exams could be given through the US Mail, but I have certain prejudices about letting the exam get out to several overseas countries. As for your "30 foot in the air endorsement" allegory, I recently observed a "person of note", famous for doing UT testing while rappelling from sky-scrapers, performing UT to D1.1 on the ground. He didn't have a clue! So, I can also see some requirement like that as not being so unreasonable. I knew an "Underwater UT expert" who didn't have a clue as to how to do it on dry ground! So, I wonder how they managed to do it in the air or under water correctly!?!?!? Of course I have seen more than a dozen dry ground UT Practitioners who also didn't have a Clue!

Justin, I think you may have some solid ideas and honest concerns. The rules and changes to the programs are made by volunteers, who pay their own travel, meals, administrative costs and hotel fees to attend and work on the Committee and Subcommittees. There is always room on Subcommittees. Do you think you would be interested in attending and joining in? Changes cannot be made on the Forum. It is even difficult to transcribe ideas from the forum to the Subcommittee, because one does not get to see all the pros and cons on the forum that you would get in face to face meetings.

Joe Kane

By Arctic 510 (**)

Date 08-26-2009 01:14

Joe-

I appreciate your detailed and in-depth response to my concerns, you bring up issues that I hadn't fully considered. The logistics and problems involved in changing an exam of this weight must be immense. I know I tend to over-simplify things as well. My primary concern would be with a potential "devaluation" of the primary CWI certification. I am all for endorsements if they are supplimentary and outside of the normal realm of what a certification requires. (I'm also all for gobbling them up whether or not I agree in principle because it may make me more marketable in the future...what a hypocrite I am! :-) As we write I am considering the RT interpreter program!) I agree with your positions on eliminating the pay every three years type renewal, and the CAWI issue, and (I'm sure) several other issues as well.

I would be interested in AWS subcomittees, although I'm unsure of all of the details involved. Are there any that meet up here in Alaska? :-) That was a joke... I'll PM you shortly...

By hvymax

Date 08-28-2009 14:23

As CWI's we should know that none of us can be all things to all codes. Someone who has spent his life on pipelines may not have a clue about aerospace structures. Anytime we undertake a task it is our responsibility to do the "homework" to bring ourselves up to the task. It seems that I am gravitating more towards the teaching\testing end of the spectrum so this fits me like an RT/UT endorsement fits with other aspects of the CWI. What I got the most out of was when we administered tests to each other using many different codes and levels of prep etc and then passed them all around making notes and pass/fail recomendations. We all missed or got things I missed that porosity 1/32 or less does not count no matter how much of it there is(break out the magnifying glass) and I caught that a 3/16 corner crack on a bend specimen is acceptable with no evidence of inclusion or lack of fusion. If we look at our CWI like an MD you still have to find your niche or speciallty and tailor your skills to fit and if a job comes up in a different niche we are qualified to take it but we are obligated to fill it. My 2 cents John B.

By Arctic 510 (**)

Date 08-28-2009 19:15

Using the M.D. analogy- An MD can perscribe medicine regardless of specialty. A pediactrician can prescribe my wife allergy medicine if he/she sees fit. It's my understanding that this is a core capability of a doctor. I highly respect the doctor who is professional enough to say "I don't know" and send you elsewhere or take the time to study whatever issue there may be. Reviewing welder qualification paperwork is (should be?) a core capability of a CWI. RT/UT is not. A CWI is not certified to conduct RT and UT. Those endorsements (they're not endorsements but different certifications, really) are completely separate from the CWI certification. AWS would be wise to consider branching out that way if anything. (Look at the various API UT certs- QUTE, etc.)

It is incumbent upon the individual CWI to be adult enough to admit he/she can't do something -or study until he/she can- when going into a realm outside of his/her expertise or "niche". Most of my work is around 31.3, 1104, or Section VIII. I do occasionally inspect structural as well. I have to do a bit of research when I am doing structural to "refresh", and while not an expert at the structural code (or any other), I am certainly qualified and certified to do so. I would stongly recoil at the thought of eventually having to get a D1.1 endorsement, a B31.3 endorsement, BPV code endorsement, as well as an 1104 endorsement just to stay marketable and work under those codes. It is my understanding that there are several code tests available to CWI candidates and that is fine, as long as taking one doesn't ever exclude one from working in the others. Offer courses in these codes or "niche" areas, and give people certificates of completion or whatever. Education is great! An "endorsement" (to me) implies competence above and beyond other CWIs who are without it (thereby de-valuing their certification).

As I understand the endorsement in question, it is more of an additional requirement for AWS ATFs, not necessarily an additional requirement for individual CWIs. I'm suprised there isn't a lot of pushback from ATFs. Then again, they save themselves conducting due diligence and shift responsibility for their employees to AWS by sending a CWI out for a new cert. I still think it is an effort to certify someone to do something he/she is already certified to do. Once a person passes a test, that person's performance is not AWS' responsibility, IMO. If one passes the CWI course just on some welding supply shop janitorial experience (bear with me here) and a two week course, one could also pass an endorsement test on the same basis.