Alright. I'm sure this question has been beaten to death but I don't have time to research.
2 companies that I have worked at have given weld cert tests. Neither company has user any WPS and they don't employ in CWIs. But.....The foreman observes the tests, cuts and bends the strips then they say that the CWI trusts then and will come in (although I have never seen him) and look at the bends.
Then a few weeks later we get our cert with his stamp on it. I was a CWI for a short while and I don't feel like any of this is legit and/or in line with AWS regulations.
Let me hear it.
It is fine. There does not have to be a CWI involved in any way. It is the employer/manufacturer/fabricator who 'Certifies' the welder and they can do the entire test as well as the paperwork. Many companies have their own program even when none of their QC nor management people are CWI's. The codes, for the most part, are good with it. May be one or two exceptions.
Beyond that, on ocassion Job Specs will call out qualification tests through an outside agency. But even then, a call to the engineer can get that altered. Especially if there are QA inspections by a TPI and they will challenge the qualifications of a welder if things are not up to par.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
My opinion...
It's fine for the company to outsource to a CWI or not even have a CWI. But it certainly isn't cool for the CWI to certify the welders if he wasn't present to witness the test. He can't vouch that the welder being certified followed directions, was in position, or even welded the coupon for that matter. There's no WPS (not that it matters if you're not there to verify it was used). How can the CWI possibly stamp this cert? What is he even validating? If the foreman does all the legwork, why even go through the charade of having CWI stamp the cert? Totally illegitimate.
I assume that if the company troubles itself with bend tests they are working to some code, no?
Noel
I thought it was sketchy having a "cert" paper stamped by a guy that never seen me. It makes no sese why even do this to begin with
Noel,
First, I wouldn't use my stamp and I normally don't do this personally. BUT, again, in some cases the employer may watch the whole thing and not have the proper equipment to bend the samples and/or just wants a CWI they trust to do the visual either of whole plate and after bending or just after bending if they have already done all the prep of the coupons.
There is nothing that prohibits this and the way the 'sample' form from AWS is laid out you can easily just sign as the coupon examiner. The employer/manufacturer/fabricator signs the bottom of the form 'certying' all the other information as well as that they believe the coupons were properly examined by the CWI.
Do I like it that way? No. I love it when they fail and I tell them I would rather witness the whole thing and that I may be able to offer suggestions and some training prior to the exam that will help the welder complete the test successfully.
Too many CWI's get on a kick that no one else can do welder quals and they want to do the whole kit and kaboodle. But, we don't 'CERTIFY' anything. We only attest to whatever portion we did.
He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent
So many facets to this gem of a question.
Much depends on who is actually signing for what eh?
RT is routinely done by techs who did not witness the weld being placed... Same for UT.
If the test report has separate sections for signatures, it is completely reasonable for a CWI or anybody else the Manufacturer judges competent to inspect and sign for what they inspected.
The big signature at the bottom "Certifies" that all above inspection elements were in accordance to the code.
Meaning: There can be separate signature blocks for visual, bends, RT and final acceptance of the whole kitten-caboodle
So all the above postings make valid points. Much depends on how the qualification process is controlled, formatted etc. as well as how it is actually being carried out in reality.
While auditors, accreditation bodies and 3rd party inspectors are often a pain, they do from time to time shine the light of truth on operators who cheat or just don't know better.
I completely agree with ya'll, of course. One has to suss out so much more information than given before a valid answer can be offered. I absolutely don't want to prematurely condemn a some CWI without all the details. However, I feel like I've seen this exact situation play out many times before and rarely is it not sketchy. The welder not being handed a WPS is not a good way to start, and is usually an indicator of even bigger fish to fry.
Bryon, if he only inspected and reported on the bends then there is nothing wrong with that. But I'm not sure why, if the foreman feels he's qualified to administer the test and prepare the destructive tests, he would then spend money on a CWI to just inspect the bends. Something still smells but since we don't have the full story I won't jump to conclusions.
If I am reading this correctly, the CWI is examining the guided bend tests and is not actively involved in witnessing any part of the qualification process. That is one stupid son of ***** in my book, but it is his CWI, his reputation, and his employment as a CWI he's placing at risk.
The Code of Ethics very clearly says the CWI is not to sign for anything he does not have complete knowledge of. If he is signing off that the guided bend tests passed visual examination, still sketchy, but not a serious transgression. If he is signing the certification statement stating the welds were prepared, welded, and tested in accordance with AWS DX.X, he is in violation of the Code of Ethics because he has no direct knowledge of who took the test, what test position it was welded in, what WPS (yes, what WPS), etc. If that is the case, you or someone with direct knowledge of what is going on should file formal charges against him. Our program doesn't need people like that.
Best regards - Al
Forum
