Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / CWI Ethics
- - By Lawrence (*****) Date 08-14-2007 03:30
Here is a professional ethics question that I think might develop into a spirited discussion.

How do you various CWI's out there deal with procedure qualification in light of AWS B5.1 2003 Table 1, which is resolutly clear that a CWI is not in fact qualified to develop PQR's

Do you;

A.  Work on the projects and then have somebody else (an engineer?) sign off when the work is complete?

B.  Contract or have on staff a SCWI to oversee the project and actually develop the procedure?

C.  Sign it off but don't use your CWI stamp?

D.  Some other strategy?

E.  Blow off B5.1

I really want to know.  I had visions of qualifying procedures myself until I recently had that table in B5.1 brought to my attention.  There seems to be no ethical problem if you are not a CWI at all, but once you have that stamp it puts a whole new set of professional guidelines (and restrictions) in place for the inspector.

Do tell.
Parent - By bigskyguy Date 08-14-2007 03:56
Act as third party,  Record all the variables, document everything, and record information needed. Write the procedure and sign off that you witnessed the work done. The contactor then signs the document confirming the document (usually the design engineer).  Bottom line will have the engineers or other governing agents signature.
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 08-14-2007 04:55
I don't make a habit of "developing" weld procedures. That to me is the realm of weld engineers. I review the pqr data developed by someone else, if it meets requirements of the code then it's approved. However, what happens to an engineer who also so happens to be a CWI? Is that person then unqualified simply because he has a CWI and  B5.1 says so?

In saying that, I disagree with the document on several counts. One of which is the SCWI preparing nde requirements. An SCWI does not necessarily know a thing about the varying NDE methods beyond general terms. In order to prepare nde requirements, the individual would have to have an in depth understanding of a.) potential flaw types, b.) potential flaw orientation c.) causes for the same d.) understanding of the effects on serviceability for a given flaw, e.) an overall in depth understanding of the NDE methods, and many other factors. I may be corrected, but an SCWI without Level III UT training is not going to know that a shear wave cannot transit a dissimilar weld of SS and inconel with satisfactory S/N and resolution if it passes at all, due to it's transmission coefficient.

The document does not address clearly what happens if say the person in question is an AWS CWI and also holds multiple ASNT level III's.

ANSI/ASNT CP-189 and it's revisions and updates have requirements for certification of NDE personnel. This is generally accepted in U.S. nuclear sites. I cannot say that I've ever seen one program that allowed a SCWI to train visual technicians in the nuclear world. Usually it's an ASNT or EPRI visual level III. If there is a program in the state side nuclear programs that allow this, I am unaware of it. Yet under training it states an SCWI develop and provide a training program for the WI.

With that being said, I'll turn that one around, how do the SCWI's out there address those matters?
Parent - - By js55 (*****) Date 08-14-2007 14:14
I am curious as to how such a glaring inconsistency that Gerald enlightened us with, and I'm guessing took him all of 30 seconds to realize, somehow seemed to go unnoticed, or ignored, in all the presumed discussions by the committee.
Is there some qualification for the development of PQR's available that would preclude CWI's? What would motivate such a clarification? Or limitation?
Coming as revelation to me this one seems strange.
Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-14-2007 15:02
I too, being an SCWI (and "former" B5 Secretary), am embarrassed to admit my ignorance of this topic, I had never really noticed it.  There's likely 1000's of CWI's who've prepared, oh, maybe a few hundred thousand or so WPS.'  In my case, it's certainly NOT an ethical issue unless that CWI feels incompetent to develop WPS/PQR's and then does so anyway.  As much as I hate to say it, perhaps this was one method of the committee's differentiating between what an SCWI can do over and beyond what a CWI may do?  I'm just pondering this question, not making rash statements.  By the same token, I've met many a CWI whom I felt far more qualified than any other "authorized individuals" to prepare WPS/PQR's... a very good and valid question has been raised and I too would like an answer.
Parent - By CWI555 (*****) Date 08-15-2007 01:39
I think I'll be leaving the weld engineering to weld engineers. As a CWI, NDE III, and having some background in welding, I could probably make a go at development of a welding procedure.
However; I do not believe I am the best fit for it. A weld engineer/SCWI may know a thing or two about NDE, but in my experience, that usually fubar the procedure unless it's a very simple one such as a type 2 method C PT, or A scan for lamination's UT. The same applies in reverse, I don't develop weld procedures day in and day out, I count myself as knowledgeable in welding and learn as much as I can as that knowledge has direct application to the NDE of the same, but that's a world of difference between laying a bead down every day of your life vs scrubbing shoes, or roasting a target every day of your life.

There are just to damn many things a person needs to know to be a true weld engineer, and the same is true for NDE, especially the dynamic volumetric methods such as UT. Unless the person has a photographic memory, enough books to build a house with, and no life at all, they cannot maintain proficiency and stay up to date in it all.

There is no such thing as an "expert".. an expert knows it all, and there is no one that fits that bill except God. Therefore in my opinion, the task should be left to people who've spent a few years of their life studying the matter in school, or have been doing it so long they've forgotten more than most will ever know.

That's my personal take on the matter. Having said that, I've also seen wannabes totally fubar weld procedures, NDE procedures, QA programs, and all the above trying to be a hero.
Ethics seems to be something everyone likes to quote, but when it gets down to the rat killing with the cash on the table, thats when you find out if they have ethics or not.
Trying to define it by procedure in my opinion is like trying to define human nature, it just can't be done.

My two cents worth,
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 08-14-2007 14:58 Edited 08-14-2007 15:07
The table in 5.1 list those job responsiblities the CWI or SCWI should be capable of performing, not what they are limited to.

In other words, the CWI doesn't have to be capable of writing a WPS, but the SCWI should be capable of writing the WPS. I know a number of CWI's that are competent to qualify and write WPSs based on D1.1, however, they may be in troubled waters if they attempt to qualify a procedure in accordance with a military standard they are unfamiliar it.

I've been doing this for twenty yers and I don't claim to know everything about the ins and outs of the many different welding standards. That's why I attend several seminars every year, to broaden my "body of knowledge".

As you pointed out, the SCWI may not have the level of expretise needed to develop NDT procedures, but they should have a working knowledge of the limitations and capabilites of the major NDT methods used to examine welds. Then again, the Level III qualified in accordence with SNT-TC-1A may be no better qualified than is the SCWI. Ultimately, it is the customer that determines whether the procedures developed, whether they are welding procedures or NDT procedure, meet their needs. 

It is the individual's responsibility to know their limitations and seek additional help when it's necessary. As a professional, the SCWI that knows that he/she is not qualified to write a NDT procedure for a critical application or using a method he/he has no knowledge of should procure the services of someone that is proficient in that area. Likewise, a SCWI that is tasked to develop a welding procedure for a process or material he/she is unfamiliar with should seek outside help from someone that is competent.

Even doctors and lawyers seek help from specialists when they encounter something that is beyond their scope of expertise.

I don't believe it is the intent of B5.1 to place the resrictions on who is qualifed to do what, only what minimum qualifications are required to attain a certain level of certification.

Best regards - Al

Parent - - By chall (***) Date 08-14-2007 15:30
Since the intent of the original post was to spur commentary, I'll bite.

Paragraph 4.2 of B5-1 says:  Capabilities.  As specified by qualification level, the welding inspector shall be able to perform the tasks listed in Table 1.

So on the one hand you are correct in saying the requirements may be considered minimums; but if it is listed as something the inspector shall do (such as the SCWI shall prepare NDE requirements), the SCWI should have the necessary training, experience and knowledge to do so.

I think the SCWI title should carry considerable weight and those that have the title should be quite knowledgeable on all topics related to welding.

My observation about the Table would be to question why there would be any requirement for which a CWI shall be capable of performing, that an SCWI would not also be expected to do (see the two sections listed under inspection).

Good topic.  We are trying to get our arms around the various levels of ability (of inspectors) and how to classify and compensate them, in our company.  This is yet another source of information to review that may help us work it out.

Parent - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-14-2007 15:39
I'd be very interested in what Joe Kane has to say since he's been a long standing official of the ethics committee and also of the certification committee's.  It would also be nice to hear from the Secretary of the B5 Committee although I tend to believe Al (803056) hit the nail on the head!
Parent - - By Joseph P. Kane (****) Date 08-14-2007 20:43
It does not say that a CWI is not qualified to do WPQRs.  It just says that SCWI shall be deemed qualified to write WPQRS.  However, If, as a CWI, you are asked to do WPQRs, and you know or beleive that do not know what you are doing, it would be a violation, IF it was the duty of the CWI.

In my personal opinion, it was necessary for the B5 Committee to come up with some reasons to sell the SCWI.  Thus, a problem for the future pundits on the values of CWI ethics. 

I also feel, that writimg WPQRs is the purview of shop personnel, Engineers, Shop QC, consultants or anyone else. 

However, in many companies, the CWI is the welding inspector, the painting inspector, the safety director, the welding engineer,and the trainer.  So, even if f a CAWI wanted to wrtie a WPQR, I wouldn't have a problem with it. 
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 08-14-2007 22:45

Thanks for the insight and replies...

It's interesting that the specification could be intrpreted so broadly. 

I like the wider interpretation too.
Parent - - By n4v4rr0 (*) Date 08-15-2007 22:39
with all respect

AWS B5.1 is a specification for the "Qualification" of Welding Inspectors, has nothing to do with QC1. as you can see table 1 mentions AWI, WI and SWI not CAWI, CWI or SCWI. as I understand this is a specification for the qualification of welding inspectors working under the responsability of an employer. see Scope

best regards

Horacio Navarro
Parent - - By Mwccwi (***) Date 08-15-2007 23:27
Horacio Navarro  good to see you back. I tried to send you a E-mail but never received a response. Your translation help has helped my team overcome our language barrier challenge Immensely
Parent - - By n4v4rr0 (*) Date 08-16-2007 02:11
Hi Mwccwi:

I appreciate your words. I had problems with my E mail but is still the same

good job with your Visual Aid Poster!

best regards
Parent - By Mwccwi (***) Date 08-16-2007 11:13
The poster is what I was going try and involve you in. I was going ask you if you have used our translated VI/PI and what kind of reponse did you get. Since then I've incorpoated the pictures from the poster and added a troubleshooting chart with each discontinuity type (only the troubleshooting chart is biased toward the shop that I work in ) with scheduled maintanence program, my crusing the welding work cells and locking out the power supplies at the procdural ranges for what is being made in each cell (good thing here is most product used like materials and thicknesses) kinda made the what changed to cause problem list narrow as compare to a general trouble shooting chart.

Horacio, my E-mail is the same I'd like to hear from you- I mention you often when I use the translation work (I let everyone know the easy to translation came from a south of the border CWI) :)
Parent - By strat (**) Date 08-16-2007 00:35
Hay everyone , Im glad to see this topic bruoght up i was just reading B5.1 the other day and thought o sh*&. I am a CWI and if so I did a PQR and WPS and then put my stamp on it does that mean that AWS will revoke my certs. I took a three day siminar on writing WPS's and PQR's from a AWS-CWI,CWE,ASNT ACCP. person with the certificate after the training. Does this account for anything.

thanks for any reply's
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 08-16-2007 14:29 Edited 08-16-2007 14:31
I don't disagree with your observation Horacio, but this thread specifically related B5.1 to the CWI and their responsibilities and capabilities. QC1 is tied into B5.1 by reference.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By Kix (****) Date 08-24-2007 14:34
So what does all this boils down too?  Can i get in trouble for writing a WPS and haveing a lab do the testing and write up a WPQR on my WPS?  I was told by someone not to put my stamp on anything if i do this because of B5.1
Parent - - By jon20013 (*****) Date 08-24-2007 16:06
No.  Keep in mind, B5 does NOT control certification, it only states what the B5 Committee suggests for qualifications of personnel.
Parent - By Bridgeman69 Date 08-30-2007 22:47
What an interesting Topic.  Thank you Lawrence for the POST.

It's time for a little input from my another wanta be.

Who cares what qualification a person has for writing a PQR ? The real question should be who should approve a PQR?

If you write a PQR improperly it fails and your company might be a bit upset with you..... But if you review a PQR that's a completely different story.

Accepting an unacceptable PQR could be catastropic. A weld failure from any WPS written by a flawed PQR could be in fact a violation of any Ethics and Morals we all try to abide by.
Parent - - By Bmell209 Date 07-29-2016 00:39
B5.1 is only referring to the "development"...haha. Meaning a CWI cant write them.. That responsibility falls on the contractor. But b5.1 also says that you can verify that they comform to applicable code requirements... if it's not a prequalified WPS then the WPS and PQR has to be approved by engineer anyways.... I don't understand the confusion...
Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 07-29-2016 03:44
Read Joe Kane's response from 2007

I'm pretty sure he was involved in the actual wording of both B5.1 and QC1

When he speaks.  Everybody else really should pay attention.
- - By vimaru Date 08-09-2016 11:27
Dear friends, i have a question need your help
Liquid penetrant testing is not recommended when inspecting which of the following materials ?
a. A casting that has been sand blasted
b. A weld test plate with defects removed by machining
Thank so much .
Parent - By thirdeye (***) Date 08-09-2016 15:30 Edited 08-09-2016 18:18
Welcome to the forum and good question. Since this is a new topic you could have started a separate thread.  Anyway, here is how I would attack the answer.  Castings can be somewhat rough on the surface and can have a coarse grain (either of which can influence a PT exam), but if you were to sandblast a casting (especially with a coarse blasting medium) it's likely you could dull or even close the sharp edges of certain surface breaking indications making then more difficult to detect with PT.  PT following machining which removed any previously identified defects works well as machining leaves a very nice surface for re-examination by PT. 

In this case, I would say "a" is the correct answer.  Just curious, what were "c" and "d"?
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / CWI Ethics

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill