js55
It has always been my contention that most SNT-TC-1A based in house training and certification programs are at least inconsistent and fraudulent. That is why the central certification concept of the AWS CWI program was so valuable and successful. The ASNT ACCP program may some day be just as valuable. I freely admit that I do not know anything about the SNT-TC-1A program run by your employer. I also know that the ASNT-TC-1A can be quite liberally interpreted using Paragraph 1.4. You may have the "Gold Standard" of programs.
Two things must be kept in mind with the CAWI; First, the person is not fully qualified to perform inspection per the AWS QC-1 (based on the AWS B5.1 qualification document)! Second, in most cases the person failed the examination! These two things are incontrovertible facts.
So, if your employee is deemed qualified under YOUR SNT-TC-1A program, and that is all that is legally or contractually required, why have a CWI, or CAWI? One reason might be for personal achievement and bragging rights. If you want to participate in the program, you have to abide by the rules. Whether or not a specific qualification is required at your company, the AWS has specified a set of rules for OUR certification.
Your "basic argument" is incorrect, and may in itself be a violation of the AWS QC-1 Code of Ethics. Your personal opinion that the COE does not apply expressed in a public forum could violate the public statements clause, because you are denying the facts. As I have said before, your company has no obligation to the AWS CWI program and the QC-1 Code of Ethics. Only the Certificate Holder is obligated! (Only the certificate holder commits the sin.)
So, for your contention "...So my basic argument is we cannot determine with the information available if there has been any violation yet or not..." I disagree. We do have information from the original poster that The CAWI performed an inspection activity covered by AWS B5.1 without supervision. We have information that the CWI signed off, or countersigned, the work that he was not a witness to. If the post was established as factual, both of these acts comprise prima facie violations.
If you have a CAWI, and you want to perform inspection activities delineated in AWS B5.1, (while working alone and unsupervised as described in AWS QC1,) simply turn in your CAWI certificate and become un-certified! (I call the CAWI certificate a "I failed my test and I'm proud of it badge".) By turning the certification in and becoming un-certified, the record of your failure does not go away, and you can then perform whatever inspections your employer deems you qualified for, without endangering your chances of ever becoming a real CWI because of ethics violation history.
How does your "Turn In" benefit AWS? The AWS is the certifying body, and violations of the AWS rules can reflect badly on the society. Unauthorized use of the CAWI tricks the uninformed public into relying on the good name of the Society for assurance of competence.
Joe Kane
I agree with Joe's position.
A condition of certification under the auspices of the QC1 program is an agreement to abide by the code of ethics and the terms and conditions set forth by QC1. The terms and conditions of QC1 are invoked when the individual accepts the certification issued by AWS. The conditions of certification are applicable whether or not the client invokes a requirement for inspectors to be certified to QC1.
This holds true for any individual certified under the auspices of QC1, the SCWI, CWI, and CAWI alike. The terms and conditions are applicable at all times, not only when they are convenient. It is like the "Boy Scout Oath,” it applies all the time, not just when the uniform is being worn.
AWS B5.2 is a standard that delineates a method for qualifying and certifying visual welding inspectors for in-house certification programs, much like the ASNT's Recommended Practice SNT-TC-1A. There is no code of ethics to abide by and it allows the employer ample latitude to develop a program to suit their needs.
QC1 is not for everyone. If the certified individual cannot abide by the COE for one reason or another, the certification is best surrendered. For example; it is best to surrender the certification if the individual decides to take a part time job as a get-away-driver for a crew planning a bank job, because of the clause in QC1 that states the certified individual will not take part in fraudulent or unlawful activities. Even though the job does not require certification to QC1, taking part in such activities will be seen as a violation of the COE. It goes without saying those activities reflects badly on all QC1 certification holders.
"We are SCWIs, CWIs, and CAWIs, but we only act like them when it is required by contract." is not going to be well received by the QC1 committee. QC1 inspectors no, scoundrels yes would most likely be the conclusion drawn by many members of the QC1 committee.
I am a lawyer by day and a pimp after hours is not going to be well received by the "Bar" because the lawyer took an oath to be an officer of the court and is expected to act as one at all times. Wait a minute; my argument is going terribly wrong. Bad example, bad example. Let me start again.
Best regards - Al
Al
OOH! OOOH!
I'll call you after - Five? Six?
Joe Kane
Call me after 6:00.
I have to take care of my daughter's horse while she's on vacation.
Al
Okay, while I was typing my question (shown below this) and dodging customers at the shop Al threw in some comments that helped me see some of the aspects of this. And it probably contains the answer to my questions.
I'll presume thus far that I did indeed understand Joe correctly and that that usage would be a violation.
Have a Great Day, Brent
Joe,
I'd like to ask a question that I hope is not taken as either a poor attempt to keep this going, nor interpreted as a justification of someone's poor choice of actions. I don't have this type of service, but maybe by asking it this way it will clear this up for me in case I ever do and for others who are following this.
So: (strictly speculative and based also upon the OP's question)
If a part of my business is testing and qualifying welders for employers in my area to whatever code, but lets say D1.1 for the sake of argument (poor choice of words), so that they can do their projects per their customers requirements in Contract Documents and that customer calls asking me to come to his shop as he does not have time to witness his employee taking a test and wants all parties to be held accountable as to who welded which plate, the position it was welded in and the process that was used etc (all of which should be permissible for the employer or his representative to witness even if he sends me the plates to cut and bend and document as to acceptablility of the test). I decide to send a 'helper' who represents me, and just happens to have a CAWI because he failed the exam, to witness the welders taking the tests and documenting their ID and bringing the coupons back to me for testing. I prep them, cut them and bend them. I fill out all paperwork and send it back to the customer/employer saying the coupons were ACCEPTABLE. My employee did no 'Inspecting'. He witnessed the tests which does not have to be done by a CWI.
Now, if I understand your position correctly, this would be a wrong, fraudulent, improper, usage of my helper/employee simply because he has a CAWI and is not to be working without my supervision. Is that the correct understanding of what you said? To me, and I'll probably get myself in trouble as js did with you Joe as to how I word this, it is not a question of disagreeing with the code and especially in a public forum, but what can I use my employees for just because they happen to hold a CAWI? Can my employees not do ANYTHING without me being right there if they have a CAWI? I felt the emphasis was on inspections done to a particular code on a job that defined usage of that code. I'm not challenging or questioning, just trying to clarify, and that possibly needs to be done with a formal question to be answered through channels.
I just want to be clear for my own understanding. Because I had thought about that kind of scenario and had not seen it as a violation. But, since I was not yet in a position to do such a thing I had not really checked it out in detail. And no one here, not the OP, js, nor you had presented a detailed application of the question from this perspective.
If the above would be a definite violation, then it would most definitely be in everyone's best interest not to even have a CAWI part of the program because it causes more problems to all parties concerned with the enforcement and obeying of the application details of the position.
I believe there are more than a few people confused or not sure of the application of this based upon some of the other previous posts in this thread. But do we need to get a formal clarification by sending it to the 'Technical Committee' so it is actually published in official format? Not questioning you and your knowledge of this issue Joe, but maybe this is not something that we should even try to clarify on the forum but need to use the 'Official' channels to expand upon the position. If so, I'm sure there are several here more versed in using this procedure than myself to get it taken care of.
Thank you for your time, I hope you will take time to read and comment on my question.
Have a Great Day, Brent
Brent
QC-1 is how the AWS "Certifies" welding inspectors. It is based on the recommendations found in the AWS B5.1. Most things in B5.1 would have the "Should" wording, because most articles in it are "suggestions" or recommendations. When you go to QC1, we use the word "Shall", because everything is mandatory. That should clear up the "should / shall" confusion.
If you choose to write for clarification to the AWS QC-1 Subcommittee of the AWS Certification Committee, you may get an answer to a concise question. We probably will not respond to the lengthly scenarios that are written about this subject in the Forum. For my part, there is no question nor any ambiguity. I was the author of the "...visible and audible range..." wording back in 1996. Back then, that wording, (that is still in the QC-1 today) seemed simple and succinct to the rest of the Committee.
I was also the chairman of the Ethics Subcommittee for several years, and I am still a member of the Ethics Subcommittee. I am also on the QC-1 Subcommittee. JS55 is not in trouble with me for questioning the explanation that I give, unless he knows I am right and is just trying to get around the requirements of QC-1 by quibbling. Legitimate questions are never unauthorized public statements. My writings here in the Forum are not the true "Official" interpretations. Only the QC-1 Subcommittee can issue the "Official" interpretation. However, since I am so intimately involved in the document in question, I believe I am giving accurate information.
I say again, the individual AWS CAWI / CWI / SCWI is responsible for their adherence to the Code of Ethics. The company, even though it may be owned by a CWI / SCWI, is not responsible if it sends a CAWI out alone to perform an inspection function listed in AWS B5.1 for CWI's. Only the certificate holder commits the sin, by accepting the assignment. In your example, it may be a scurrilous thing for the CWI owner to send the CAWI out alone, but it is not a violation of the Code of Ethics for the employer.
I agree that the D.1.1 does not require the QC inspector to be a CWI. It allows the use of a person who has experience, training, Education, ETC. It does have another clause that says the bases of the employers certification for their appointed inspector shall be documented. In other words, where is the test you gave that appointed inspector? So, just because the contract requirements do not require a CWI / SCWI, doesn't mean that the work of a witness, a function listed in the B5.1, does not require direct supervision when the witness has a CAWI. Remember, the CAWI is A: not qualified, and B; probably has failed the exam. How do you, the employer, now say that he is qualified. The CAWI card is evidence of a lack of qualification. What is your documented "BASE" of his qualification?
In the example you gave, the witness function is one of the functions listed in AWSB5.1 for a welding inspector (WI).
Unless you want to hold the CAWI's hand until he / she passes the exam at the CWI level, he is useless to you. I recommend that he surrender the CAWI certificate, and become un-AWS Certified. As long as he / she is AWS Certified, the CAWI is the only person in the world who cannot perform some solo inspection function! After there is no longer any AWS Certification, the person may once again perform any inspection function that the employer certifies him to perform.
There is no way to get around the QC-1 restriction. The Certification Committee does not want there to be any loopholes. All the scenarios that have been brought up time after time in this forum have not shown me any loophole that could get around the "...Visible and audible..." wording. This is not the first time this topic has been brought up in this forum.
Many of us on the Certification Committee want to get rid of the CAWI. The process if eliminating the CAWI is not a simple as it might seem to be. I won't get into the reasons my motions to eliminate the CAWI do not pass the Committee vote. If you have a more recent copy of the QC-1, you will see that we have limited the CAWI to only one three year term as a CAWI. The next step, will be to eliminate it.
I hope that I have not further muddied the waters for you and js55.
Joe Kane
Thanks Joe, between you and Al I think I understand better now. And while reading your response and matching it up with the QC1 & B5.1 I see where you pull your info from. Sometimes when something doesn't apply directly to me it is easily missed when I read through the documents. With this question and all the discussion involved I hopefully know how to put it together now.
Looks like this one is going to take a good deal of your time. Thanks for taking that time.
Have a Great Day, Brent
Joe,
Please have the members of your committee read this thread!
We are the ones that deal with this useless (CAWI) certification and must deal with the confusion.
I hold several other certification and none of them have a junior grade. You either is or you aint.
AWS should get rid of the aint and just go with the is.
Hopefully speaking in this manner does not qualify me for a ethics violation.
Curtis
I have tried to eliminate the CAWI in the past. I will be trying again in three weeks.
However, I am sure you have heard of a Level 1. There is an "Aint" certification.
Joseph P. Kane
Original Poster (O.P.) wrote
"A CAWI witnessed a welder qualification test and a CWI signed the welder qualification record. The cwi did not witness the test, he was not at the shop that day. Is this the proper way to do this?"
I answered " Too many unknowns to give a definitive answer.
If it was to AWS D1.1 then any designated representative of the employer could be enough."
You say that a CAWI no matter what is being unethical if they are inspecting welds with out a SCWI or a CWI within sight and sound? "CAWI's Violation-Working alone and unsupervised. (Not in "...visible and audible range at all times...")"
Ethics is a philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
What about if a person has been doing inspection for a company to AWS D1.1 for years. That person has been reviewed and audited by numerous folks like D.O.T.and has been found through training and experience to qualify to do this inspection according to this Code. Why would it be unethical for the person to continue to do this for their employer after they went to AWS, took a three part test and because they were slow at turning pages and circumstances like not used to taking tests they didn't make a high enough score on the open book but for a CAWI, doesn't matter that they scored in the 80's and 90's on the other two parts?
I guess I will stir the pot with my my ¢¢'s and the QC-1 and B5.1.
The O.P. didn't say the CAWI Certified the results he said he witnessed them.
QC-1
States in the "Statement on the Use of American Welding Society Standards"
"In issuing and making this standard available, AWS is neither undertaking to render professional or other services for or
on behalf of any person or entity, nor is AWS undertaking to perform duty owed by any person or entity to someone
else. Employers and other persons utilizing the services individuals certified by AWS are responsible for determining
the qualifications, competence, and ability of those individuals.
This standard may be superseded by the issuance of new editions. Users should ensure that they have the latest edition.
Publication of this standard does not authorize infringement of any patent or trade name. Users of this standard accept
any and all liabilities for infringement of any patent or trade name items. AWS disclaims liability for the infringement of
any patent or product trade name resulting from the use of this standard.
Finally, the American Welding Society does not monitor or enforce compliance with this standard, nor does it have the
power to do so."
Also in the QC-1
4.4 The CAWI shall be able to perform inspections,
under the direct supervision of a SCWI or CWI within
visible and audible range, and as defined for the AWI as
in AWS B5.1, Specification for the Qualification of
Welding Inspectors. It is the SCWI or CWI, however,
who has responsibility for certifying that welded assemblies
conform to workmanship and acceptance criteria.
Then when we go to AWS B5.1 Specification for the Qualification of
Welding Inspectors
4. Functions
4.1 Duties. The employer shall define the welding inspector’s
specific duties.
4.1.1 AWI. The AWI shall be able to perform inspections,
under the active supervision of a SWI or WI. Supervision
should be within visible and audible range. The
SWI or WI, shall maintain the responsibility for determining
if welded assemblies conform to workmanship
and acceptance criteria
Notice in B5.1 the Specification uses the word Should not Shall for the proximity effect.
It is like you are comparing apples to oranges.
OP didn't give enough information especially for someone to cry ethics violation.
You are saying that a CAWI can not do what they have been trained to do because the didn't score high enough on a part of the test.
What is unethical about doing tasks assigned that you have been qualified for.
Publicly they may not be Certified to do certain things but for their employer I believe they are.
In the QC-1
11. Code of Ethics, Rules of Conduct,
and Practice
Preamble. In order to safeguard the health and well
being of the public and to maintain integrity and high
standards of skills, practice, and conduct in the occupation
of welding inspection, the American Welding Society
SCWIs, CWIs, and CAWIs shall be cognizant of the
following principles and the scope to which they apply,
with the understanding that any unauthorized practice is
subject to the Committee’s review and may result in suspension,
reprimand, or revocation of certification.
11.1 Integrity. The SCWI, CWI, and CAWI shall act
with complete integrity in professional matters and be
forthright and candid to their employer, the regulator or
employer’s customer, and with the Committee or its representatives,
on matters pertaining to this standard.
11.2 Responsibility to the Public. The SCWI, CWI, and
CAWI shall act to preserve the health and well being of
the public by performing duties required of welding
inspection in a conscientious and impartial manner to the
full extent of the inspector(s) moral and civic responsibility
and qualification. Accordingly, the SCWI, CWI,
and CAWI shall:
11.2.1 Undertake and perform assignments only when
qualified by training, experience, and capability.
Looking at 11.2.1 it doesn't say undertake and perform assignments only when qualified through Certification, it says by training, experience, and capability.
Again it is just my ¢¢'s.
Marshall
Marshall
The QC-1 is based on the AWS B5.1. The B5.1 is the recommendations for the functions of the AWI, WI and SWI. The QC-1 actually provides for the actual AWS Certification of the AWI to become a CAWI and the WI to become a CWI, Etc. The B5.1, since it is a recommendation would use the "Should" wording. The QC-1 uses mandatory wording, "Shall". There should be no "...It is like you are comparing apples to oranges..." confusion.
Because the CAWI is certified by the AWS, we can place restrictions on his / her activities. It does not matter who else says the work performed by the inspector before he / she is certified by AWS is acceptable, once you accept and own one of our certifications, you become obligated to our rules and restrictions. If you cannot live by these restrictions, turn in your certificate, and the AWS restrictions no longer apply. For AWS's part, the CAWI is NOT QUALIFIED and FAILED the exam. Why should AWS allow that person to represent himself a fully qualified by AWS, and to work alone?!?!?!
AS FOR YOUR... "What about if a person has been doing inspection for a company to AWS D1.1 for years. That person has been reviewed and audited by numerous folks like D.O.T.and has been found through training and experience to qualify to do this inspection according to this Code. Why would it be unethical for the person to continue to do this for their employer after they went to AWS, took a three part test and because they were slow at turning pages and circumstances like not used to taking tests they didn't make a high enough score on the open book but for a CAWI, doesn't matter that they scored in the 80's and 90's on the other two parts?
I guess I will stir the pot with my my ¢¢'s and the QC-1 and B5.1.
The O.P. didn't say the CAWI Certified the results he said he witnessed them."
Puleezeeee!!!!! Stop quibbling! Give us a break!! If your inspector cannot pass the same test that 22,000 other CWIs have passed, let him / her turn in the CAWI certificate, and continue working the way he / she has been doing all along. By the way, did you read the clause in the D 1.1 that says the "BASES" of qualification shall be documented? What written test did your ace inspector pass? I'll bet you didn't even read that part of Section six. Sorry to be so sarcastic here, but your wording indicates challenge, and not fact finding. If you want to challenge, join the Committee. Volunteer your time and money. When you do, you will probably develop a better sense of responsibility and respect for the CWI program and the process that generates it.
I disagree with your answer that there was not enough information given. The OP said that the CAWI witnessed the test, and that the CWI was not present that day. Then the CWI signed off the test that he did not witness. There is enough information given to establish a prima facie ethics violation by both the CAWI and the CWI.
The AWS does not have an Ethics requirement for the employer. It may be a scurrilous act for the company to put the CAWI in a position where he / she has to violate the COE restriction for visible and audible range restriction, but the Ethics violation is a sin committed by the Certificate holder, and is not the responsibility of the employer.
The QC-1 Ethics requirements and certification limitations are not philosophical. They are enumerated. As a CAWI it is implied that you will adhere to the AWS restrictions on your certification.
Joe Kane
Joe
Where in Clause 6 does it say an employer needs to administer a test before a person is qualified and able to inspect.
AWS D1.1 Clause 6 doesn't say that the contractors Inspector is required to take a test.
In 6.1.4 Inspector Qualification Requirements
6.1.4.1 Basis for Qualification
It says they shall be qualified and the bases of Inspector Qualification shall be documented. (doesn't say anything about tests given, a Company Procedure outlining requirements and a would be docu) Then it says that if the Engineer elects to specify the bases of Inspector Qualification it shall be so written in the contract documents.
Then it goes on to list three acceptable qualification basis, (3) An individual who by training,or experience, or both, in metals fabrication, inspection and testing, is competent to perform inspection of the work. (again no mention of test)
So let me ask you this
If I am an AWS CWI and I have developed PQR's and also wrote the WPS's based on the PQR's, according to you and your understanding of the QC-1, I would be in violation?
Marshall
Marshall
You are correct. As written it does not require a written test. I was transferring information from another discussion with Mr. Hardy Campbell, the previous D1 Secretary. It was his opinion that the D1 Committee was implying that a written test was required. How else do you determine competency in a manner to document it. I suppose there are other ways. However, in most licensure type qualification schemes, in most industrial fields, a written test is involved.
So, absent something more specific, as long as it is documented, whatever base of qualification the employer and the customer agree on would be acceptable.
As to your question about writing WPSs as a CWI, are you referring to this function as being described as the duties and functions of an SCWI? We had this discussion within the last three years in Committee, and we agreed the answer would be no. There is no violation.
Joe Kane
Joseph P. Kane
Thank You
I will leave this alone, as my Granddaddy always said "boy you need to learn early which battles to fight and which to do a strategic retreat to fight another day".
As you mentioned before if I want to challenge, join the Committee.
Marshall
I had a CAWI on a couple of my jobs, DSA work (California schools)... Used him to hang angel wings, pull deck, and smoked all of his cigarettes.
Duke
I am surprised that DSA allowed a CAWI to perform welding inspection or even bolting inspection! OR - Did I just miss the sarcasm?!?!?!
Joe Kane