You have to go back to the customer that you are working with. They in turn would go their customer, until it does go back to Boeing or Lockheed. It follows the same logic as a military standard, which one would expect since the military standard (MIL-STD-2219 and MIL-STD-1595) served as the basis of D17.1 and D17.2. Old habits are slow to die.
Al
Maggs,
My inference is that you would prefer to have orbital and manual GTAW performance qualifications be separate. If this is your preference... I agree and will say a few words to try to support your position from the Specification.
Having the "standard practices" for welding from your OEM's GE, Pratt, Lockheed, etc. are super valuable. For subjects like yours, if you were to take the most stringent qualification requirements and place them in your own quality manual, this may be a solution.
To the Specification.
I'm looking at D17 2010
5.1.1.1 defines "Welder" via AWS A3.0 terms
5.1.1.2 defines Welding Operator via AWS A3.0 separately.
Orbital welding safely falls within the description of Welding Operator whether or not filler us used. (in my opinion)
"Correlation Factors" between test welds and production welds are based on essential variables yes?
Those correlation factors are uniquely listed for Welders (5.2.2.1) and Welding Operators (5.2.2.2)
Those correlation factors are somewhat shared, but not the same. In my opinion they are uniquely listed for a reason; which is to have separate performance qualifications for each. (Welders & Welding Operators).
My "opinion" above is supported (particularly in your case of orbital welding) by 5.3.5.2 Where welding operators are qualified on all diameters via a single test assembly. This is not the case for Welders. See 5.3.3.1{C} . Also note less restriction on operator qualification on 5.3.6.2 as related to table 5.4