CWE & CWI conflict of interest

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 11-29-2010 19:33

Welcome to the Forum!

Instructors do not certify their own students in AWS Accredited Test Facilities (ATF's). But other institutions do not have the luxary of having multiple CWI/CWE's.

However as far as AWS D1.1 Structural Code and certification doccuments for CWI's and CWE's are conserned, "in my opinion" there is nothing at all that would limit an instructor from evaluating a students weld sample by whatever means are available (visual or destructive, rt, UT, whatever) and preparing a report that states what the student has completed. This does not qualify the student to do production welding. But it does state that the student was compliant on the process/material/thickness/positions noted in the test report. In fact in the D1.1 code there is no language that stipulates that a CWI must inspect anything.

I would ask your "someone" to show you exactly how this would be a conflict of interest and what specific code/specification they are using to back their assertion. Maybe there is something in writing that I've missed.

I think if a student has done code compliant work in class that they should have something to show for it!

AWS QC1 2007
http://files.aws.org/certification/docs/qc1-07.pdf

Here is an excerpt from AWS QC5 AWS Standard for Certification of Welding Educators
http://files.aws.org/certification/CWE/QC5-91.pdf

"4.6 Evaluation of Welder Training. The Welding
Educator evaluates the performance of welding students
to verify that they are properly trained and qualified
in accordance with the applicable welding procedures.
The Welding Educator reviews and verifies that the work
being performed follows the instructions.
4.7 Inspection. The Welding Educator performs
visual inspections of the "in-process" and completed
weldments to confirm that they comply with the
documents.
4.8 Reports. The Welding Educator prepares clear
and concise reports of the reviews, inspection results,
and performance data."

As you see here.. Making reports is part of the CWE's responsibilities.

By storiejp Date 11-29-2010 19:45

Thank you.

By 803056

Date 11-30-2010 03:09 Edited 11-30-2010 03:11

I have been at odds with AWS' requirements for an ATF for years with regards to the prohibition of a CWI being able to provide training and qualification services.

The concern is that the CWI providing the training can be "swayed" or is biased when administering the welder qualification test. The CWI is being paid to provide training and would not want to see the welder fail after being trained.

My argument is that a school that provides training and certification has the same bias as any individual CWI, if not more so than the individual CWI. The money paid by a student to a school or large company as well as the time invested can be considerably more than what is paid to a CWI for a day to two of training. Whether two different CWIs are involved is not going to make the qualification test any less biased when the school's financial well being is based on turning out qualified welders.

If anything, the individual CWI providing both training and qualifications is more likely to administer a "good" test to protect his reputation and make sure he is not in violation of the code of ethics. Should the CWI be accused of a violation of the COE he has to defend his actions and faces AWS sanctions if he is "convicted."

The same is not true of a company or a school providing both training and qualification testing. The company or school cannot be charged with a violation of the COE, only the individuals involved are at risk. The worst that can happen to the company or school is they fire the CWI that takes the fall and hire someone else as a replacement.

I believe the individual CWI should be treated the same way a company or a school is. Both should be held accountable for their actions. Both the individual CWI and the school/company (with multiple CWIs on staff) can provide both training and qualification services or neither of them can offer both services.

Best regards - Al

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 12-02-2010 20:15

Aye-Aye Captain!!!

I concur completely with your view FWIW Al. ;)

Respectfully,
Henry

By 803056

Date 12-12-2010 21:19

The AWS Accredited Test Facility is the only place where the individual training the welder cannot administer the performance test.

Other than the DOTs for specific states, there is no requirement that the welder performance test be administered, evaluated, and the report signed by a CWI. In other words, anyone other than a CAWI can give the welder the performance test and certify the welder.

I see little value in testing welders at an ATF. As a CWI, I will not accept the paperwork of a welder that is tested and certified at an AWS AFT for several reasons. One of the reasons I will not accept the paperwork for SMAW is that the SWPS for carbon steel allows the welder to use 3/32 inch diameter electrode. None of my clients is going to put a welder to work if he cannot handle anything larger than 3/32 inch diameter electrode.

My recommendation is to provide the best training you can, test the welder, evaluate the test coupon, perform the required bend tests, and if the welder passes, complete the performance test record using letterhead and sign the certifying statement saying the welder was welded, tested, and evaluated in accordance with AWS D1.X, ASME Section IX, or API 1104. Your signature at the bottom of the test report is as good as any issued by an ATF or AWS.

If your welders turn up on the job-site and they can't produce, the paperwork you issue will be rejected by every inspector in your area, so it behooves you to make sure you only certify welders that can produce acceptable welds in accordance with the applicable codes. You are not doing the marginal welder any good by passing him and sending him out to companies in your area.

We had one welding school in my area that certified nearly every welder completing their 10-week course. Needless to say, half of them couldn't stick bubble gum together. It wasn't long before prospective employers wouldn't even interview welders that attended that school. The school is no longer in business.

Best regards - Al

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 12-12-2010 22:01 Edited 12-12-2010 22:07

CCeducator,

Welcome to the forum.

I would be very interested in more detail about your experience with AWS personnel and how they "very much frown CWI's qualifying students in non-ATF environments".

What exactly have they told you and what exactly do they use to justify what they are asking?

Those individuals pressuring you need to be taken to task.

Al's responce is something I hope you take to heart.. There is NOTHING in writing published by AWS to even remotely suggest that an instructor whether or not they are a CWI/CWE should not produce test reports that validate student work.. Sooner rather than later Carl Perkins funding may very well hinge on the demand of audits to this effect. And why wouldn't you stamp/sign a report validating the work you observed with your own eyes? Which is all any certification is in essence. They complied with code on a given day or they did not. Putting that fact in writing is all any cert. amounts to.

How is this any different at all from a third party tester comming into a business, proctoring performance qualification tests, finding that everybody fails and then doing a little mentoring/training before the next retest... Or the scenario where the QC rep for a fabricator conducts the testing and also performs training to meet ISO or new technology requirements. None of these are a conflict.

Edit:

Worth repeating:

AWS QC5 AWS Standard for Certification of Welding Educators

"4.8 Reports. The Welding Educator prepares clear
and concise reports of the reviews, inspection results,
and performance data."

By cceducator Date 12-12-2010 22:32

Hello Lawrence,
Basically I was told that I could not make any reference regarding "AWS or it's standards" on the document. For example, on the bottom of the D1.1 supplied recommended qualification form where one would include the year code in which you are using - that would be a "no no". I was told that they have followed up on individuals that have disregarded these warnings. I will admit that it has been some time since I last inquired, one to two years, but I talked to the folks that are in charge of the auditors and reviewing the applications to become an ATF. To be honest with you, I felt as though it was more of a way to generate income and it wasn't worth risking my CWI status that I have held since 1987. I may have misinterpreted what they were trying to convey, but in talking to other instructors they felt the same way.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-13-2010 01:14

cceducator

I would be interested in hearing a tape recording of the AWS Staff person telling you what you have described in this string of posts. You had better be careful that the wording on your paperwork doesn't say that the welders are "AWS Qualified" or "AWS Certified". Presently, the only way to get "AWS Certified" in the true legal sense of the word is through an ATF. However.....No one on AWS Staff belongs impugning properly conducted and properly filled out welder certification / qualification papers issued by competent persons outside of the ATF program. They have no business implying that valid testing and paperwork, conducted and issued, outside of the AWS ATF program is somehow defective. Volunteers can do that and anyone else can do it, but not AWS Staff.

... Other than that you can say that the welder took a "welder performance qualification" test in accordance with (Cite Chapter. paragraph, Figure, Table, or page, or whatever chapter and verse is appropriate, and the name and year of the document,) on (such and such) date. Then say that you tested the coupons in accordance with (again cite chapter and verse), and that you certify that the tested coupons met the acceptance criteria of (again cite chapter and verse). You do not need to say that they are "Certitfied", although you can say that you "certify" that all the above happened as you describe. Since you are doing the certifying, you can also limit the life span of your certification, even if AWS D 1.1 does not.

As Al Moore pointed out If the welders are no good when they get to the job site, your reputation and the school's reputation will go down the drain. If you paperwork has errors, you and possibly the school could loose credibility.

Speaking strictly for myself as a member of the AWS Certification Subcommittee on Ethics, I personally do not perceive any "Ethical" problems with the activity that you propose, as long as you conduct yourself properly and do not make fraudulent or misleading claims.

Joe Kane

By cceducator Date 12-13-2010 03:34

Thank you for your response Mr. Kane. I appreciate the feedback from all parties on this thread. It is timely as we have been considering alternatives such as third party testing as a means of program validation. If I understand correctly, we can use the sample form/template in the appendix of D1.1 (or appropriate D1.X code), enter the year of code at the bottom, and it can be stamped - as long as all the testing has been done in accordance with the code cited on the document. We would also include the college's letterhead as a means of identifing the institution where the test was performed. Once again, thanks for the clarification.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-13-2010 13:47

I wouldn't exclude the College's letterhead. It adds credibility to the paperwork. The important thing is that the welders can really perform as advertised when they get to the job.

By cceducator Date 12-13-2010 14:21

Thanks for your help Mr. Kane. No problems with stamping it either? I will use the sample forms in the back of the codes in their entirety, stating the date of the code used. What do you think? Alex

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-13-2010 19:33

Sometimes CWI Stamps help loan credibility to a properly executed document. However, I would only place the stamp next to the parts of the testing that I performed. If you only did the visual, put your signature next to the visual inspection line. Have the radiographer sign next to the radiographic test results boxes, or the Destructive testing technician sign next to the mechanical test results section.

In reality the Certification Committee has determined and stated that the AWS CWI stamp has no legal significance unless it is misused.

I would consider altering the forms in the back of the Qualification code documents to accommodate your method of testing, and to incorporate your College LOGO. If you do not use radiography in D 1.1 tests eliminate the Radiography block...Etc. You could shorten some lines such as the "Filler Metal name" and add some other information that might be descriptive and helpful.

Again, as Al and Lawrence point out, the welder still has to perform when he/she gets to the job.

By vagabond (***)

Date 03-25-2011 12:26

OK now I gotta ask what if we put on the paperwork they are qualified to Section IX??? Not AWS?? I'm just asking is all. Also is there anything ethically wrong with testing the welder (who was your student) and then having the coupon shot/bent at an ATF facility?? I'm just not seeing the difference between a CWI testing and qualifying a welder out on the job or doing it at thier "school" if they have one?? Neither is an ATF. Just my .02.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 03-25-2011 18:48 Edited 03-25-2011 18:55

I think if you are a school you are in a tricky place to say anybody is "qualified for production" period.

You can prepare a report that states that tests were taken, wittnessed, inspected, destructively examined etc and the results were pass or fail... You can state in the report the criteria you examined them by .. You can state the WPS and supporting PQR's that were involved.. Position, alloy, essencial variables... all that good stuff.. Make the report period.. Sign/certify what you observed... But only a contractor/project engineer/authority can qualify a welder for production.

It may seem like nit-picky semantics... But in the code world it's important in my opinion.

Can you make Section IX welder performance test reports for your students? I don't see why not. As long as you are doing things in compliance with that code.. (PQR's etc.)

My personal ethical line as an educator is to put a watermark on my test reports that state "For Educational Purposes Not for Production." If employers want my services to qualify their welders for production they can hire me as a third party inspector, and pay me to do it. There are testing labs and third party inspectors who I would be toe stepping if I flooded the market with Tech School certs for production... Furthermore... My Test reports are linked to my WPS's and PQR's... Not the Production WPS's and PQR's of whoever may hire my graduates... The watermark is the best way I know to make this clear.

I think any employer who puts a welder to work with external certs.. Even from an ATF is foolish, unless they provided their own WPS's to the facility doing the performance testing and the folks doing the inspection as well.

There is no difference (in my opinion) if a CWI or any other authority does testing at the workplace or at a school or at an ATF.. As long as WPS's are the ones that will be tied into what will be used in production and are backed (when necessary) by apropriate PQR's.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 03-25-2011 22:59

Overall I like and appreciate Lawrence's position. For a school that operates on tax money as well as student tuition to 'compete' with those of us who do not have that kind of financial resources is not fair to the system.

If you want to qualify/certify welders then go buy all the equipment we had to buy, get the shop space, pay the insurance and other overhead and go for it.

Otherwise, STICK TO YOUR DAY JOB!!

Have a Great Day, Brent

By dbigkahunna (****)

Date 03-27-2011 23:16

I have no issue with a school issuing papers that indicate the graduate passed a welding proficiency test. This could not be done to section IX as the welder qualifiaction is done to a company or manufacturer WPS and PQR. It is in the realm of possibility a school would go to the trouble to do a Section IX WPS and PQR and then qualify the students to that. Some manufacturers want some documentation the graduate has a competency level. I am on a advisory board for a JR college where the graduates have a level I and II certification. The local employers know the competency level of the graduates of this program and the welding process the graduates are proficient in. The graduates are accepted for entry level positions based on these certificates. They are then required to pass proficiency test by the company after a period of time.
I do not know why people want a "Certification" for welding. Having tested a lot of welders in my career, some of them are flat out scared of taking a test. They would rather take a beating with a log chain or mow the grass with a push mower than take a test. A lot of entry level welders are afraid of busting a test and would rather go to a individual to get "Certified" and show those papers as though it means something. And busting a test. especially on a line where there are other welders, can be a humbling experience.
But if you are going to survive in this industry you better get over it real quick.
Any welder on any day can bust a test or a x ray.
And if it is not your day testing, there is always tomorrow.
People need to get over this "Certification" garbage.
You can show me papers out the wazoo. I don't give a rats patoot!
I could care less if you ran beads on the Trans Alaska or did tie ins on the Ruby. I don't even care you made 10 - 12 inch welds and they all passed 1104 yesterday.
There are your nipples.
Today is a new day and your job is to weld those 2 nipples together today. If you pass you will get qualification papers that are good as long as the job last, 6 months or you drag up and do it all over again.
If you are in a educational program you need to understand testing of welders is just one of the things that come with this profession. If you are a company and think papers make the welder, then you are getting exactly what you deserve.
Until the industry gets its chit together and comes up with uniform welder testing qualifications this "Certified Welder" garbage is going to go on, and on, and on........................................

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 03-27-2011 23:59

TBK

There are any number of SWPS that can be acceptable by ASME Section IX...

Not my bag to qualify welders for production unless thats a negotianted TPI kinda thing..

But you mentioned an important thing about welders being "afraid" of busting a test... If the trainers can make things as close as possible to jobsite test conditions and hammer it in repetedly.. The students *begin* to get used to the notion that they will be constantly tested in their careers and in my opinion there is value in that... Maybe greater than any "foot in the door" papers they walk away with.

If students don't walk away with something to validate their work, they are not getting everything they should. There are alot of good ways to validate that work and most of it is really dependant on the region.. AWS SENSE, NCCR, ...whatever. If those students have no papers, their chance of getting in your shop to take a test may be reduced.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 12-13-2010 19:48

Alex.

I'm sending you a template example of the test reports I provide to students via email.
(the code references for each section always need check and edit when the next code revision comes down)

It's based on the D1.1 annex directly, but I have edited out RT etc. and left in only visual and bends to remove clutter. (on the advice of some of the more seasoned forum experts)

I have it in a word doc with drop down menus so I can use it for various processes and gasses.

By cceducator Date 12-14-2010 01:57

Thanks everyone - I did get the template Lawrence - I may get ahold of you soon to maybe compare notes if you don't mind. It's alittle busy this week as we are conducting finals over the next few days. Happy Holidays to all, Alex

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 12-14-2010 03:25

Finals for me too!

We'll talk.

Merry Christmas Alex.