Getting your Certificate from a welding school, I did

By jwsscott777 Date 06-30-2011 02:30

Yes it's a good thing for young people to get their completion certificate(diploma) from a welding school. I find it a challenge sometimes to convince my students to complete the program, get the certificate of completion, then take a qualification test. They seem to think that all they have to do is do their 3G or 6G qualification test and then leave the school before they completly finish the program which includes blueprint reading and welding math. I tell them that as an employer, I would be hesitant to hire someone who shows an inability to complete things (tech school) regardless of their welding qualification report. Anyway, that is my beef with the state of students in my neck of the woods. The attachments you provided would look good for the student on their resume. Hopefully, they don't take it for granted.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 06-30-2011 11:52

I had one call me up out of the blue yesterday demanding that I give him a certification test so he could go out on his own. He tells me that the instructor at the school where he was taking welding classes told him to get with me and that I could certify him. So I ask a few more questions to try to get some direction, if I am to help this guy. He then tells me that his current employer won't certify him, so he wants me to do it. He can't tell me what code to certify to, what materials or any specifics...just wants me to certify him. Now I don't have have a problem helping small companies get their QC and welding programs off the ground and running, but something just smelled funny here, especially with the 'attitude' he was having on the other end of the phone. I think he thought he was going to just show up and I give him a test and that was it. I tried to explain that his employer is responsible for the certification of their employees, not me......so he finally asks me if I was going to certify him or not...I told him that I didn't think that I could help so he hangs up on me.
What is up with some of these people?

By jrw159

Date 06-30-2011 12:43

As sad as it is, there are many people out there that believe that is the way it works.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 06-30-2011 12:46

I understand the ignorance of the certification process but,
I don't believe that I have ever had anyone demand that I certify them....weird phone call for sure.

By Duke

Date 06-30-2011 03:12

Possibly it would be helpful to not have GMAW described as 'fluxcore'

By 99205

Date 06-30-2011 05:26

I believe that may be technically correct. It's GMAW using Flux Cored Wire.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 06-30-2011 11:14

99205

??????????????????????? What??? How???? What reference???? Please educate me, or at least remind me of some fact I may have once known but have now forgotten.

Joe Kane

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 06-30-2011 15:10

Joe,

I haven't run into it yet so I am asking, Could it be referring to the Metal Core wires? Are they considered a Flux Core or GMAW? They are used similar to spray but with faster deposition rates.

But for the most part, I agree with you not 99205. Flux Cored wires are FCAW and Solid Wires with gas shield only are GMAW. So it appears the paperwork is slightly incorrect. As John said, could just be a typo.

99205, is there something we are missing here? As far as I know, you don't run a GMAW with flux cored wires.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 06-30-2011 17:32

Metal Cored wire is considered MCAW, but D1.1 does throw it into the same process category as GMAW. To be honest MCAW and GMAW seem to run about the same to me, both do not produce a slag system, both need about the same skill level to use, both have high efficiencies of deposition of 95%/lb. or better vs the 85% for FCAW....ect.

By 99205

Date 06-30-2011 16:24 Edited 06-30-2011 16:31

Well as soon as I posted that I knew the Slap Down Crew would show up but hey, every post is an opportunity to learn, lol. I refer you to A3.0:2010 - FCAW (read the first sentence), GMAW (read the first sentence). Now lets go to Fig A.1. both GMAW and FCAW are listed as part of the Arc Welding Process Group. The distinction, according to A3.0:2010, is how the shielding gas is generated. So is Gas involved in the welding process? Is Metal involved in the process? Are both included in the Arc Welding process? Since all the answers are Yes FCAW could be considered GMAW because it does use Gas, it does transfer Metal and it uses an Arc to Weld. Maybe there needs to be a little tweaking on the definitions.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 06-30-2011 16:38

....another distinction to consider is the slag system of FCAW vs GMAW.
BTW, Thanks for bringing A3.0 to the discussion, I had only briefly looked at the definitions in the rear of D1.1....which is biased because they seperate the processes and consider them to be different.

By js55

Date 06-30-2011 17:22

Doug,
Are you being facetious?

By 99205

Date 06-30-2011 18:44

Not at all. I haven't seen any documentation showing that what he has on the certificate is improper. I thought I would investigate why people were saying it was wrong. As far as I can see technically it's not incorrect.

By js55

Date 06-30-2011 19:02

The 3.0 definition of flux core stating "the process is used with a shielding gas from a flux contained within the tubular electrode" is not significant enough to segregate FCAW from GMAW?
Perhaps I misunderstand.

By waccobird (****)

Date 06-30-2011 19:12

js55

We both misunderstand maybe because we are not in the habit of comparing apples to oranges?

Marshall

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 06-30-2011 19:15

Welding Inspection Technologies 3rd edition
"Gas Metal Arc Welding is characterized by a solid wire electrode which is fed continuously through a welding gun."

^^can't say that about FCAW :razz:

By 99205

Date 06-30-2011 20:03 Edited 06-30-2011 20:05

Well with all the chest pounding and finger pointing going on here, I dug a little farther into this and after looking at A3.0:2010, fig. A.4 and decided that the Certificate is not entirely correct. That's all I was looking for was proof. It's always fun to get people stirred up in the morning, breaks up the daily boredom. :twisted:

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-01-2011 03:29

Those who take a text out of context make it nothing but a pretext because they are trying to save face instead of admitting a mistake.

You can't take a single sentence from a definition of a term and make a complete conclusion as to it's meaning. When one takes the COMPLETE definition and makes proper interpretation it is clear there is an obvious difference between FCAW and GMAW and that the two are not the same.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By 99205

Date 07-01-2011 05:07

I must say that the responses to my antagonistic post was quite revealing. A simple post directing to the appropriate figure in A3.0 would have sufficed.

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-01-2011 06:09 Edited 07-01-2011 06:20

Btw, Doug! It is Doug???

The correct spelling is Magnetic Particle - Not "Magnectic Partical" as you made in your bio... No offense. :eek:

Al also reminded us that ASME Section is the code that groups together these otherwise two different processes...

Finally, just to clarify your interpretation of what in essence, AWS A3.0 states with respect to the question of whether or not FCAW & GMAW are actually the same process, I invite you to look at first, page 113 in AWS A3.0 - @
"Figure 54A -- Master Chart of Welding and Joining Processes" and look at the listed - separate Arc Welding processes in the top box in the left side of the chart... This alone verifies that they are indeed separate arc welding processes...

However, just to further verify the intent of the "Figure 54A-- Master Chart of Welding and Joining Processes" found on "page 113 in AWS 3.0",
I further invite to review:

"Figure 56, on page 116" which shows the "Fusion Welding Classification Chart."

Now if you look closer to the chart up toward the top of the chart towards the right corner, you will see that there is a term listed as: "Process" which when viewing down from the top of that column, clearly shows the different groupings of the various processes and determined as separate based on the attachment to either the "Gas" or "Flux" shielding column shown.... It's pretty much straight forward that the intent of these two charts are to specifically separate the two processes in question... What do you think???

Respectfully,
Henry

By 99205

Date 07-01-2011 07:29 Edited 07-01-2011 07:37

Yes the name is Doug and I fixed that spelling error. I posted above that I found the info you've described. I am using the A3.0:2010 and it seems that it is assembled differently from the older additions. I was told by Chuck Knox, who sits on the Terms and Definitions Committee that this is their best effort yet. Might be a good idea to get the new edition. Thanks for your response and I appreciate that it is informative and not an exercise in belittlement.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 06-30-2011 11:37

Yup, it's a typo that should be corrected to FCAW before issueing any further certificates of completion.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 06-30-2011 13:52

First of all... Congrats to the original poster for earning the cert of completion!

I hesitated at first to join in on the ciriticisim of thd doccument since the lad has no hand in it... But just for the sake of accuracy, keeping in mind that a good qualification report is pretty darned hard to make... here goes.

AWS QC10 Specification for the Certification and Qualification of Entry level welders does not include the following "

1. 4G SMAW performance Qualification (only 2G and 3G are mandated)

2. Groove weld D1.1 style destructive tests in GMAW or FCAW... (they are cluster joint fabrication tests for both short circuit and spray transfer and all capstone tests are visual inspection only)

3. GTAW of Pipe... 6G or otherwise... Pipe welding is not an Entry Level skill and not included in SENSE Entry Level Criteria..

4. Yes according to the AWS.. GMAW and FCAW are distinct and seperate processes.

This all means is that our lad has Exceeded SENSE Entry Level critera on a number of subjects. His certificate may be sloppy... But, that cert as written represents a boat load of learning!

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 06-30-2011 14:23

"First of all... Congrats to the original poster for earning the cert of completion!"-quote

Yes, Congrats to the original poster KennyCalJr, I apologize for not saying that earlier.

"But, that cert as written represents a boat load of learning!"-quote

So very true Lawrence. Something to certainly be proud of, however the journey of learning has just began for KennyCalJr, and continues for all of us. This field has a way of keeping you humble....weird how that works.

ie. The field of "welding" is so vast and so complex and intricate that there is almost no possible way that one person can know it all...therefore the more we learn, the more we find that we only have seen the tip of the iceberg.

Good job KennyCalJr!

By 803056

Date 06-30-2011 15:18 Edited 06-30-2011 19:07

Many of us have encounter people that group GMAW and FCAW together. In part, it could stem from the fact that both processes are listed together in ASME Section IX in Article II covering procedure qualification. The way the two processes are differentiated in ASME Section IX is by the filler metal product form. Other than that single distinction, they appear to be the same. Table QW-255 has lead to many discussions with contractors that assume a procedure qualified using either solid electrode or tubular electrode qualifies them to use both. I usually categorize this problem on selective reading abilities on the part of contractors. I notice that it is a common malady suffered by contractors.

ASME also groups the two processes together for welder performance qualification which furthers the confusion. Filler metal product form is not an essential variable in QW-355, thus a welder qualified for either FCAW or GMAW is qualified for both processes.

Respectfully – Al

By js55

Date 06-30-2011 20:51

Al,
I would agree with you on the 'selective reading' thing. Of all the years I've dealt with Section IX and all the questions I've had concerning it, that ain't one. Even when I was a rookie to IX this was quite clear, though I thought rather odd.

By 803056

Date 06-30-2011 23:59

I'm not sure I understand your comment.

Al

By js55

Date 07-01-2011 12:06

In many instances I have found that a questioner knows very well the requirement but has discovered he is in non compliance for some reason. Not wanting to deal with the compliant disposition he searches for some loophole, some alternative interpretation, justifying it with 'selective reading', that will get him out of his trouble with minimal pain.
We see these kinds of questions in here all the time. A clue, though certainly not an absolute, is when a questioner argues with the answer provided. Especially when that answer is provided in the form of a consensus of what are generally considered knowledgeable people and the questioner continues to dissent.
Another clue is a leading question much like we see in official interpretations where the questioner suggests the answer he is looking for.
Note, that in the great majority of official interpretation requests the set of circumstances wherein a person is in non compliance and trying to get out of trouble is the rule.

By KennyCalJr (*)

Date 06-30-2011 20:15

Thank You

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-01-2011 05:11 Edited 07-01-2011 15:16

Thank you Lawrence!!! And if there's anyone who should have intimate knowledge of: "AWS QC10 Specification for the Certification and Qualification of Entry level welders" it's Lawrence... Since after all, Larry had a good part in re-formulating, revising & upgrading this specification as a AWS SENSE committee member... :wink:

So, in summary and as Larry so eloquently explained, this certificate is QUESTIONABLE AT BEST - PERIOD! That is unless of course, someone accepts it with no clue as to what encompasses the testing & workmanship requirements required for these students to actually qualify to:
AWS QC10 Specification for the Certification and Qualification of Entry level welders.

Also, when I used to teach potential level II & III welders (Advanced & Expert), the 6G position using any specific process was first encountered by the students when they attempted to qualify to Advanced/level II welder qualification - not during Level I.

Finally, it sure is a boatload of learning which if truly accomplished in the the time-frame that was documented in the certificate as being 200 somewhat (210?) hours - is indeed an extraordinary accomplishment to say the least!!! :roll:

Don't even get me started on the question of whether or not GMAW as being the same process as FCAW because - surely you jest!!! must be some sort of new fangled fuzzy logic or a form distorted quasi-Bayesian algorithm at play here. :confused:

Remember folks... it's the details... Always in all of the details and Larry knows these details intimately. :eek:

Respectfully,
Henry

By Shane Feder (****)

Date 07-01-2011 11:52

Guys,
Take a deep breath and relax.
Kenneth is proud of what he achieved and he posted it on the forum.
Whether the company who trained him has used the right terminology is irrelevant - is it an official document or just a record of what he has done ?
We had a small minority congratulating him for what he achieved and the majority arguing over whether they are classed as the same process or not.
If ASME IX (which is quite a well known code. LOL !) groups them together as one process as Al noted then obviously there is going to be some confusion regarding the differences.

As for questioning the duration of his training - 210 hours.
29 years ago I attended an 8 week course (320 hours) in New Zealand and walked out with qualifications to NZS 4711 (similar to AWS D1.1) in SMAW 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G (4 separate tests) - actually it was harder than AWS D1.1 (6" radiographed, 2 x bend tests and 2 x nick breaks).
Also obtained ASME IX 6G (using cellulosic electrodes in the vertical up) and ASME IX 6G GTAW/SMAW.

Well done Kenneth and good luck with your future career,
Cheers,
Shane

By ssbn727 (*****)

Date 07-01-2011 15:08 Edited 07-02-2011 22:11

I agree with you Shane yet, it took you 110 more hours to accomplish what you did than the OP and in my book, that's a big difference from 210 hours of training to achieve similar results with respect to the range of qualification exams this students was trained for.

Look, I'm not saying that he could not have achieved such a range of qualifications as well and successfully completed the other courses within the noted time frame...

I just mentioned that it is questionable for someone unaware of the format & curriculum layout with respect to the course materials used in order for this student to complete this amount of training in such a short amount of time, and to such a specific AWS SENSE level course in order to meet it's minimum requirements... Unless there were only a relatively few amount of total students which would in turn provide an environment that would be very conducive to accelerated learning potential...

So you see Shane, It is indeed quite possible that the student did accomplish what is stated in the certification paper providing that the conditions were optimal so that one could produce such results. However, without enough details mentioned, and as an educator who has taught a variety of curriculum with respect to welding science & physics, and welding technology & metallurgy, I will instinctively question this achievement for further clarification regarding the details of the course environment to satisfy my curiosity & skepticism regarding the comparatively short amount of time used to complete such a course of this scope and size.

Finally, if one has never taught to AWS SENSE level qualification courses, one would not understand in depth the details & assignments necessary in order to meet their minimum requirements... I on the other hand have taught all three level courses many times... And these entail AWS qualifications with their respective WPS which do not fall under the scope of ASME Section IX, so the two processes are indeed considered separate according to the referenced code found in the certification paper.

And AWS SENSE Level One does not include a portion of the listed mandatory qualifications (GTAW 6G carbon steel isn't a requirement in Level I as Larry pointed out to us previously, and would require an additional amount of time in order to adequately train the student to this procedure) shown in this students certification... The average amount of time necessary for a student to complete the Entry Level qualification is usually a bit longer than what is listed yet, for all intended purposes, this student might just be above average as well.

So I also congratulate the student for successfully completing such a course under such extraordinary conditions. :smile:

Respectfully,
Henry

By KennyCalJr (*)

Date 07-01-2011 17:15

Thank You Shane.

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 07-01-2011 19:05 Edited 07-01-2011 19:14

Kenny

No worries.

We all just like talking shop... Some of us are "code guys" some of us are educators, some of us burn rod, some are engineers... Everybody has a different perspective.

There is always a big debate with training...

One guy started out as a "helper" in and never had formal training beyond the school of hard knocks, he now makes bank and thinks everybody else ought to do the same.

One guy went to university for 6 years to get a degree, and between bong hits, learned every technical term available, but the only hands on welding was one semester gas welding. He thinks we should all listen to him.

And everything in between.

We all have taken different routes to get where we are. They all worked!

In my neck of the woods $5400 would buy admission to a 1 year diploma program consisting of approx. 1000 hours of lab time over two semesters, plus the hours requred for two semesters of math, a semester each of communications and blueprint reading. Many of our students are running on Govt. grants... I say if the grant if offered .. Take it!

I can also understand why some folks are skeptical about everything listed on your cert. being accomplished in just over two hundred hours. But the truth of it will be proven out over time... If the market is flooded with certs that say a 200 hour course has produced certifiable/certified welders in 4 processes plus 6g pipe, either every employer on the east coast is going to hire them and the world is unicorns and rainbows... Or the people with 200 hours of training will be applying for work requireing certifiable skills in 4 processes and 6g pipe and will not be able to duplicate in the pre employment weld test what that cert says they can do... In the end.. The cream rises to the top and the chaff is burned away.

Private training organizations can *compress* training more effectively than some colleges can... Thats a fact, and thats why they cost up to 20x more for tuition (see Wyo Tech or Tulsa Tech) But fitting 1400 hours of training into 210 hours makes some folks wonder exactly how they might do it.

Edit:
I'm glad you scored a job and you can begin your *real* learning

By KennyCalJr (*)

Date 07-01-2011 20:29

Thank You.... very much for that positive feedback. I understand what u mean by the hours and some people are very wary on what the class intailed and to be honest, it was very little class room and TONS of burn time in the booths. trust me. but like you said it worked out for me and I have a job out of it. and that's what most important special in todays JOB market.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-01-2011 23:02

And I apologize for my short comings of not congratulating you on your success and accomplishment and welcoming you to the AWS Welding Forum.

Don't let our little disagreements discourage you from participating here. We are a bunch of individuals with all our own hangups and soapboxes and pet peeves. We are opinionated and often get carried away with trying to make sure every jot and tittle is in place and followed to the letter of the law. Then, we find out we misunderstood either the law itself or the question that was asked.

Thank you for sharing your success story with us and get to work using that newly acquired set of skills. As you work keep seeking more information and learn to improve those skills even more. You will do just fine.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By KennyCalJr (*)

Date 07-01-2011 23:20

Thank You my friend

By 803056

Date 07-02-2011 00:44

Congratulations KC.

Most of us like a lively discussion and a few have been known to stir the pot a little just to liven things up a bit. My post started out several times longer, but it wasn't germane to the discussion so I edited my post to keep it in line with some of the earlier responses.

By the way, it is my understanding that metal cored electrodes are being moved from the A5.18 specification to the A5.20 specification for flux cored electrode. That should help demystify the situation with metal cored electrodes.

Best regards - Al