By 803056
Date 02-04-2012 14:49
Edited 02-04-2012 14:56
This is not a case of the inspector not interpreting the code properly, he simply does not know how to read and apply the code. I believe it is called functional illiteracy.
I am sure you have made the point the clause cited by the CWI simply means the welder is required to follow a WPS while testing. It does not limit the welder's qualification to the one WPS used for test purposes.
This is a situation where the CWI's employer should be advised of the situation. The employer should pull the CWI off the project if the CWI cannot perform his duties because he is unfamiliar with the requirements of the applicavble code or if he cannot be objective in carrying out his duties.
The CWI has an obligation to ensure the applicable project specifications and code requirements are met, but he doesn't have the right or the authority to make up requirements as he sees fit based on his personal opinion. This is a gross case of overstepping one's authority which has financial implications for both the welder and his employer. Perhaps the welder’s employer has another position for him this time, but what happens on another project where this CWI makes a similar mistake?
While stupidity cannot be the basis of the Code of Ethics, the inability to be objective in carrying out his duties as a CWI is. The following excerpts from QC1 could serve as the basis of formal charges against this CWI:
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.
11.2.4 Be completely objective, thorough, and factual
in any written report, statement, or testimony of the work
and include all relevant or pertinent testimony in such
communiqués or testimonials.
I would view this as a situation where the inspector is not objective or impartial, he is not performing his duties in a conscientious manner, and he certainly hasn’t demonstrated he has the necessary training, experience, or the capability perform his functions as a CWI.
Rest assured, if this CWI has demonstrated he doesn’t understand how to apply the requirements of D1.1 on this project, he is doing the same on other projects.
I would be interested to hear from our good friend Joe on this matter.
Welder performance qualification is the cornerstone of how the welding industry ensures welders have the necessary skills to deposit sound welds. Most codes follow the same principals with regards to how welders are qualified. In general, most welding standards are in good agreement as to what welding variables are applicable to the range of welder qualification. If this CWI cannot read, understand, and apply the requirements of D1.1, there is little likelihood he understands how to use other codes. Remember, the CWI only needed to score a 72% to pass the open book examination. I would hardly say that test score constitutes “mastery” of a given code or standard.
I recognize we do not have the full story. There may be factors I am not aware of, but the simple fact that someone is prepared to draw a line in the sand may be sufficient to bring the CWI to his senses. This may be a simple case of a new CWI having a case of the “God Complex” and in need of good spanking to make him realize as a Verification Inspector he has limited authority under the auspices of D1.1.
It would be nice to believe this CWI can be educated before he causes real financial harm or worse.
Best regards – Al
Hi
If the problem is that the inspector interprets the code incorrectly, then some logic will help set him right. For example, you could state that according to his interpretation, if a welder welded a test piece with a hydrogen controlled electrode (F4) then the welder would not be allowed to weld with an F2 electrode, (see variable (2) in Table 4.5) but variable(2) in Table 4.12 clearly allows the welder to weld with F1; F2; F3 & F4 electrodes. If this is the case, how does the inspector explain this? If he merely needs to have a misunderstanding of the code changed, this will give him enough to re-consider his position.
If however the problem is that the inspector is trying to protect his ego, even though he knows that his call is incorrect, then I would just contact the client who has to pay, and politely ask him if he is prepared to pay for the additional testing required by his inspector. If the answer is yes, then no problem let him pay for the test. If the answer is no, then ask him to have a word with his inspector.
Regards
Niekie