CWIs wanted for welder qual testing across the country

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 01-19-2012 22:49

Joe, I've always wondered about the value of ATF's, even when I worked in Cert. Dept. at AWS. I know I may get some abuse for saying this but it's just a matter of wondering.

Under AWS Codes, can an employer accept an ATF Certificate without requiring initial testing or retest? I can only speak from a personal perspective but I would not.

This really isn't intended to sound negative, just wanting some clearification.

By PWCameron (**)

Date 01-19-2012 23:00

Oh No He Di-int!

By Lawrence (*****)

Date 01-19-2012 23:45

Not to be flip, ok I am.

But can't an Engineer (capital E) comply with code and also accept welder performance qualification testing reports that are scribbled on a napkin? That's what authority is all about eh? :)

As far as AWS codes go... I think it would take an addendum to an internal quality program doccument, specific to a company, to make ATF test reports a requirement for any kind of AWS code production work.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 01-20-2012 02:05

Jon

Joe Leonard seems to have his sights set on using radio and television advertising in target areas to give tests in that target area using cWIs who will be hired as test administrators on an as needed basis. This will certainly increase the value of an ATF. Licuis Pitkin in NYC doesn't even have it's own testing lab any more. It only comes to your location to give the tests. In most codes, the Third Party testing service can give the welder performance test. sometimes there must be changes to the company's operation manual, or QC / QA Manual.

I am not involved with him other than for discussions and long time association. I know that he is really competent and really knowledgeable in welding. His "Welding Expert" claim is not entirely hyperbole or business hype. He is really good!

His idea for having CWIs all across the country work for him, somewhat goes along with the upcoming "CWI Qualifier" program that you may see if the latest QC - 7 ever gets out of committee.

Joe Kane

By 99205

Date 01-20-2012 02:28

"CWI Qualifier", what kind of money drain is that?

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 01-20-2012 16:39

CEI99205

"CWI Qualifier", what kind of money drain is that? I have to somewhat agree with you on that point.

The "CWI Qualifier" is a program where a CWI would go to Miami, and sit through some training class on the proper way to conduct welder qualification testing per the QC-7 Standard protocol, then take a test and get certified as a "CWI Qualifier". This CWI Qualifier will then be able to give Welder Qualification Tests for any AWS Accredited Test Facility (ATF), ship the coupons to an ATF for testing, and the welder can get on the AWS National Registry. This will ONLY apply to CWIs conducting tests for the National Registry through an ATF, and not to the work traditionally done by CWIs.

As a member of the Certification Committee, I agree with the concept, but vigorously disagree with the term "CWI Qualifier". I fear that some specification writer somewhere will pick up the term and think that a CWI has to have this endorsement to be able to conduct welder qualification testing. I fear it will mistakenly be perceived by the public as restricting the traditional duties of an ordinary CWI, or indicate that the ordinary CWI isn't fully qualified to perform the function that he has traditionally performed. Like the other Code Book Endorsments, there may eventually be a general requirement by the end users for the CWI to have been tested and trained in the proper protocol for conducting welder qualification testing.

I have seen some very egregious conduct by some CWIs in the field, conducting these tests, and personally see some need for additional training and standardization so that the CWI program does not get a bad reputation. However, in my not so humble opinion, the term "CWI Qualifier" imparts the wrong message to the uninitiated.

Joe Kane

By 803056

Date 01-20-2012 18:43 Edited 01-20-2012 19:02

Joe;

I also have serious concerns regarding the revised standard, but I will hold my tongue a bit longer about the specific issues I have.

However, since you broached the subject of the ATF and the Qualifier I will comment on an associated subject. I take issue with an article in the current edition of Inspection Trends. Based on the article it would appear that I will have to hand in my certification as a Senior Certified Welding Inspector. There is no way I am going to explain to a prospective client the pros and cons of testing their welders at an ATF so they can be included in the National Registry of Certified Welders.

Ford sales people do not describe the differences between their cars and their competitors, nor does another American company explain the benefits of their competitor's products versus their own. The Supreme Court of the United States has determined that advertisements do not even have to be truthful when companies tout the benefits of their products. In other words it is perfectly legitimate for me to say that my coffee is the best in the world even if I know that I'm the only one that enjoys drinking it. Likewise, AWS is allowed to publicly announce their welding standards are the best in the world without having to back it up with scientific data.

In this case, I would venture to say few CWIs understand what the ATF is really about, what is required to be an AFT or a “Qualifier” (since that hasn't been fully defined yet), and who will accept the certifications provided by AWS.

In my humble opinion, as it is, currently there is good reason for an Owner to question the validity of a certification issued by AWS or whether the ATF can test welders to codes other than AWS D1.1.

Now, the Ethics Committee says that the CWI has to "teach" the customer about the differences between a certification issued by the employer (after all that is what the CWI is doing when he qualifies a welder) and a certification issued by AWS? I believe the Ethics Committee needs to go back and consider the ramifications of that position. There is nothing in the QC1 Code of Ethics that says I have to be a spokesman or advocate of any AWS sponsored program.

I will agree a CWI should be truthful in a response when a customer asks whether their welder will be eligible for inclusion in the National Registry of Certified Welders, but I'll be damned if I will bring up the subject without a direct inquiry. I consider the AFT program to contain fatal flaws and see no more validity in a test administered by an ATF versus a test administered by any other testing facility.

The inclusion in the National Registry is no more valid than any other qualification issued by competing organizations or companies. All the welding standards published by AWS, ASME, API, or the military require the employer to certify their welders. Only the AWS D1.X standards allow previous certifications by other employers or testing labs to be accepted by the employer or Owner. Even the AWS D1.X codes do not require the new employer or the Owner to accept certifications issued by a previous employer or testing company.

In my humble opinion, as an employer, it false economy to accept a certification issued by a previous employer or testing lab. There are too many unknowns involved and the liability associated with accepting certifications issued based on a welding procedure over which I have no control simply offers too much risk in exchange for the few dollars saved. As an employer, if I know so little about a certification program that I have to depend on the opinion of a CWI that may or may not be intimately knowledgeable of the various testing protocols, I am in deep poop.

Am I going to tell my customer about the National Registry of Certified Welders? The answer is very simple, “No”. If my customer asks a question about the NRCW, I will tell them to call Miami and if they ask me for the telephone number I will direct them to the telephone operator.

Best regard – Al

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 01-20-2012 21:40

Al

So, if someone asks if YOU are an ASNT Level Three, I am sure a simple "Yes" would be all the answer you would consider giving. If someone who considers himself an "appointed" ASNT- SNT- TC-1A Level Three tries to tout his qualification as the same as yours, would you not explain the difference?

I am sure you wouldn't consider that to be as valid as your National Level Three. If you had a customer who called you after their client didn't accept their "Appointed" Level Three, and asked if you had the "Proper Qualification", I am sure that you would be glad to inform them about the differences between the qualification that you had and the qualification the last guy had!

So. If someone asks you for an AWS Welder Certification (Qualification), wouldn't you consider it germane to point out that you can not give him an "AWS Certification", and explain the reasons why?

By 803056

Date 01-20-2012 22:57

The difference is that the customer asks the questions.

"Are you a Level III?"

"Yes."

"Are you certified by the ASNT as a Level III?"

"Yes."

"Are you certified by the ASNT as a NDT Professional Level III?"

"Yes."

"Can you certify my NDT personnel per ASNT?"

"Yes, I can qualify your personnel in accordance with ASNT SNT-TC-1A or CP-189 once I am appointed as your outside agency. You, the employer have to sign the certification."

"Which is better, the certification in accordance with SNT-TC-1A, CP-189, or ACCP?"

"It depends on the work and the customer requirements."

"What certification do you hold?"

"I'm certified by ASNT as a NDT Professional Level III and by my employer to comply with SNT-TC-1A and CP-189."

Now back to your real question. "Can I certify the client's welders?"

"No, the employer certifies the welders that are his employees. I qualify the welder and I sign the test report indicating the welder passed the requisite tests."

"Can anyone else certify my welders?"

"In my opinion, under the auspices of D1.X, ASME, API, or any of the military welding standards only the employer can certify their welders."

Am I going to spend time explaining all the differences and nuances involved in testing welders every time someone calls the office and says they want to get certified? The short answer is no. I am not going to get involved in a detailed discussion of how and why welders are qualified to all the different welding standards. My typical response is that I qualify the welder to a standard that covers the work they do and then the employer certifies them by signing the paperwork.

It is interesting to note that D1.1 does not use the term certification or certified welder.

Even if the welder gets tested by an ATF and is issued the "AWS Certification" it isn't necessarily going to be accepted by the Engineer (Owner's representative). As a person charged with reviewing welder certifications on behalf of an Owner, I look for the employer's signature. If there is no signature the paperwork is incomplete.

I see little difference between the ASNT certification and certification in accordance with SNT-TC-1A. With both employer retains the responsibility for certifying their employees are properly qualified.

A similar situation exists with welders. Whether the qualification is done in-house or by a third part such as a testing lab or through AWS, the employer retains the responsibility to certify the employee is properly qualified.

Best regards - Al

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 01-21-2012 16:04

Al
This last post is a nice exercise in verbosity and QUIBBLING!

Bottom line is; A client asks you to give his welders an AWS Certification. Then, without any clarification to the client, you proceed to give a Welder Performance Qualification Test to D 1.1 or some other AWS Code.

In your first post on this subject and your second post on this subject you seem to think it is OK to dance around the subject and not inform the client that only the AWS can give an AWS Certification. I infer from your post that you think that you do not have the obligation to be truthful and completely candid with the client. I infer that you think it is OK to give "Explanations" and "Clarifications" that tell the client what services you want to perform without addressing the basic issue as to whether or not you can give his welders an AWS Certification.

Sure you have been factual and true with your replies to the client, but you have not been completely candid with him, because you did not address the original request to give his welders an AWS Certification.

I disagree with your statement that you cannot give a Certification to a welder, and that that is just the purview of the company official. If your client appoints you as his representative, you can sign the "Certification" as a representative of the company. A power of attorney or even a simple letter designating you to perform this function will be adequate to cover you in this circumstance.

Joe Kane

By 803056

Date 01-21-2012 19:56 Edited 01-21-2012 20:42

During my thirty years of self-employment, I do not I recollect a single instance where a client has given me power or attorney or asked me to take their power of attorney to act in their behalf when testing their welders. Nor has any client appointed me to be their legal representative for the purpose of testing and certifying welders. I doubt many CWIs reading this thread has been given that authority by their clients. I further doubt that AWS demands that authority (power of attorney) before issuing a certification or listing an individual in the National Registry of Certified Welders (NRCW).

By your argument, AWS or any organization that issues certifications would have to have the power of attorney from each person that is issued a certification. Are you serious? I don’t recollect giving AWS that authority when I became a CWI.

I chose not to be the certifying agency when it comes to qualifying and certifying welders (or inspectors for that matter). I stopped that practice many years ago when I recognized that that is the contractor’s responsibility. If you chose to be the certifying agent on behalf of your client you are free to do so, but please follow your own advice and obtain their power of attorney (in writing) before testing their welders. If AWS elects to act as a certifying agent, please let them know they need the power of attorney from each candidate before issuing a certification. I would hate to see an AWS program placed in jeopardy because someone overlooked such an important document.

It was a nice attempt on your part to throw up a smoke screen to cloud the subject and introduce new concepts in how a welder is qualified and certified to an AWS welding standard or any other standard for that matter.

Most people or companies inquire whether or not a testing lab can test, qualify, or certify a welder. As stated before, my typical response is that I qualify the welder when I administer a test. It remains the employer's responsibility to sign the certifying statement at the bottom of the test report. My signature on the test record indicates the tests were performed and the individual passed the requisite test requirements.

I am under no legal obligation to teach or instruct a prospective client the differences or the nuances of all the different welder qualification requirements of every welding standard published. When I get a telephone inquiry from a prospective client I ask what code they want to test to. If they are uncertain or don’t know I ask them what type of work they do and usually suggest a code or standard that might be appropriate. The code they test to is their decision, not mine.

It is pure folly to imagine I am going to spend much time (at no charge) describing the pros and cons of each welding standard, the limitations of the type of work they can perform and all the different tests that can be administered to qualify a welder. If they are attempting to obtain a state license to weld pipe I direct them to the department of licenses and tell them the telephone number is in the phone book. If they need to be licensed by the City of New York I tell them to call NYC to find out what the requirements are. Better to do that than provide misinformation. Am I going to spend an hour on the telephone teaching him the difference between the test I administer and a test intended for welders that want to be included in the NRCW? The answer is, "NO!" I will direct them to call AWS in Miami.

The truth of the matter is I have never had a prospective client specifically ask for an "AWS Certification". Few individuals understand what an ATF is and fewer yet know what the NRCW is. Since the NRCW is a business venture established by the AWS with profit as their motive, it is their responsibility to market their product and to educate the public what their services are.

I doubt AWS staff has or will tell a prospective client that my testing services may be better suited than theirs for the purpose of testing to ASME, API, or to a military standard. I also doubt AWS staff will take the time to tell the prospective client that the AWS certification or inclusion in the NRCW is not universally recognized and does not have to be accepted by an Owner.

When AWS informs a prospective candidate about my capabilities as a testing company and they send a customer to my lab I will be happy to return the favor. Until then, AWS will have to market their services and I will market mine.

Am I going to try to steer the prospective client away from taking his test at an ATF? You better believe I am. It is called BUSINESS.

You have more information on the specifics of the case before the Ethics Committee than I do. However I believe the committee will have to have overwhelming evidence that the individual (CWI)[url=] intentionally lied [/url]about his ability to administer a test that would permit the welder to be listed in the National Registry of Certified Welders (NRCW). Did he understnd that he isn't qualified to provide an "AWS certification"? Did the client specifically ask to have the welder tested for inclusion in the NRCW? Or did the client ask if the CWI could test the welder in accordance with AWS? Did the client ask if the CWI could administer an AWS test? I believe there are too many opportunities for holes in the sieve to hold much water Joe.

The majority of the welders that are certified think they are "AWS Certified" because I believe it is misleading for the AWS to say they are the only one's that can issue "AWS Certification". The welders and many inspectors do not differentiated between "certification in accordance with an AWS code" and "AWS Certification. You (Joe) and I may be more sensitized of what the differences are because we work on the (or used to work) on the subcommittees developing the standards. I don't believe it is all that clear to the average CWI, testing lab, inspector, or welder. If AWS wants to market the "AWS Certification" they need to do a better job of marketing it or do a better job of branding. Perhaps a better tradename for the certification issued by AWS would be useful.

Unless a CWI is interested in becoming an ATF, there is no reason for them to have intimate knowledge of the ATF, their capabilities, or the specifics of the NRCW. There is no reason for a CWI to learn about the NRCW and no reason to expect a CWI to be a marketing tool for an ATF or AWS' NRCW.

AWS has plenty of money to market their own program. I assume AWS uses money collected from membership dues, certification fees, etc. to tout their programs. It is incumbent on AWS to do a better job of marketing their product and educate the public about their programs.

AWS and Marion Testing & Inspection are competitors. There should be no mistake that an independent CWI (one that doesn't work for an ATF) or a lab (that isn't an ATF) that offers services such as welder qualification testing is in competition with AWS and their system of ATFs. We are vying for the same clients, e.g., welders that need to be “certified”. To expect a testing lab or an independent CWI to become marketing tools for AWS is ridiculous from a business standpoint. To say that a CWI that fails to “teach” the prospective client the differences between their services and the services offered by AWS or another testing lab can hardly be considered a breach in the Code of Ethics. To do so would be a myopic view of the situation.

I’ve voiced my opinion on this subject and my good friend Joe has done a fair job of trying to slap me on the side of the “knoggin”. How do other CWIs that operate as independents feel on this subject? Isn’t that what this Forum is for? Do you feel you are obligated to “teach” your potential clients about the services offered by your competition?

Best regards – Al

By joe pirie (***)

Date 01-21-2012 20:17

I certify welders all the time to aws D1.1 and im not about to stop
i like the easy money

By 803056

Date 01-21-2012 20:41

Disregarding all that you may have read in this post up to this point, would you have said the welders are:

A) AWS Certified
B) certified to AWS D1.1
C) certified in accordance with AWS
D) certified by Joe Pirie
E) certified by their employer

Do you typically obtain or have "power of attorney" to certify welders on behalf of your clients?

Did your client ask to be:

1) AWS certified
2) "AWS Certified"
3) certified in accordance with AWS D1.1
4) a certified welder
5) certified by Joe Pirie

Do you explain the differences in terminology to you prospective client?

Should you have your CWI credential revoked if you didn't understand the differences between the terminology used? Did you lie if you didn't know what the differences are between the terms used? Did you learn or were you told of the differences when you studied for the CWI examination?

I am not an advocate for the individual that has a case before the Ethics Committee. I don't know all the facts, but I wonder how many CWI could fall into the same trap. Are there more reasonable actions that could be considered if the customer isn't satisfied with the services provided? Return the money comes to mind if the services rendered were not to the satisfaction of the customer. This is, assuming the welder passed the tests to begin with and assuming the customer knew exactly what he wanted and asked for exactly what he wanted. This seems like a very muddy road to me.

Best regards - Al

By ozniek

Date 01-23-2012 13:16

Hi Al

You have touched on a subject that I also feel strongly about. That being: Industry bodies that compete against their members and in essence operate to restrict the growth of an industry rather than promote its growth. I have seen this in a number of welding industry bodies. Obviously there is a fine line, and the management of the industry body needs to act with both foresight and integrity to make sure they get the balance right. As an example, let me give the following, which is quite typical:

If there is a great shortage of welding inspectors, and this is restricting the growth of the welding industry, then it is a good call for a welding industry body to develop training courses and present these to boost the number of welding inspectors in the market. (It will also be a nice income for the industry body.) The cost of producing the training course and putting the infrastructure in place to present it is essentially bourne by the members of that body. (In other words the welding industry.) If other training providers show interest to also train welding inspectors, this should not be seen by the industry body as competition. Rather, it should be seen as furthering their member's interests, and they should jump at the oportunity to help these training providers get off the ground. At this point the industry body could slowly move into "accrediting" the training providers to make sure they are providing inspectors of the required standard, and slowly remove themselves from that particular training market by increasing their prices so that there is an incentive for more training providers to enter the market, and for candidates to go to the other training providers.

The argument above can be applied to consulting services, artisan training etc. I believe a truly successfull industry body is one whos business it is to establish the foundations on which the rest of the industry can build. If the industry body competes with their own members (training providers, independent inspection organisations, consultants etc.) and offers services at reduced rates because they have an income that is subsidised by the very members they are competing against, then the industry body is working exactly against its own member's interests by restricting the growth of the industry they are supposed to serve. This is a sign of an unsuccessfull industry body.

A good industry body grows the industry, not the organisation itself. Obviously good management is needed to ensure sustainability of the industry body itself.

Just my opinion!

Regards
Niekie

By 803056

Date 01-23-2012 14:35

Hello Niekie:

I believe your position is on the mark.

Imagine how industry would respond if ASTM decided to start producing structural materials, bolts, rail, etc. in addition to publishing the standards used by the material producers. Another example: consider the response from the fabricators if AWS started to fabricate structural steel or rolling stock for the railroad industry in additon to certifying fabricators (as they do now) or if AWS started to provide third party inspectors for on-site inspections in addition to training and certifying inspectors, or if they started to certify welders at their corporate office (wait a minute, didn't they try that for a couple of years already?).

You make a good point.

Best regards - Al

By 99205

Date 01-21-2012 01:37 Edited 01-21-2012 01:44

Ok, I understand what it is now. I went through a 1 week class recently, that allows me to enter welder qualifications, into my Crafts section in the AWS data base. This only applies to my Craft. I am concerned though, that this "Qualifier" will generate grey areas in the interpretation of what the "Qualifier" really is.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 01-21-2012 19:29

Doug

Both Al and I have many objections to the new proposed QC-7 document. I tried to adopt all of Al's objections, when I had to vote on the proposed document. Al was on the Subcommittee, and was removed by the Chairman,because of his "Negative Views". The Chairman was not open to his criticisms and figured out that the easiest way was to get rid of him. While I did not agree with all of Al's comments on the document He showed great insight and analysis. Few, if any, of his comments were even considered.

The term CWI Qualifier was banned by motion and vote of the whole Certification Committee two years ago, but the Subcommittee decided to use it anyway! At the Last meeting, I just gave up arguing the point.

This is not "Politics" as some might think. In Al's case, removing him from the Subcommittee might be Illegal under the ANSI and AWS Operating Rules, but it is a done deal now. Give and take in committee work is what makes "Minimum Consensus" documents and standards work. It is a real shame that Al's ideas and criticisms were not carefully considered.

Al's comments on the merits of the Inspection Trends article are not part and parcel of the QC -7 issue.

Joe Kane

By 803056

Date 01-21-2012 20:43

Time to shovel some snow!

Al