Well, you again show where your head is at, right where you claim the other inspectors was. Having a CWI doesn't make you a qualified inspector. Oh, and of course your side of the story is always right, all anyone has heard is what you told them.
You have not answered my questions, did you bend the coupons? did you see the discontinuities under scrutiny yourself on all test or are you taking the word of the individuals alone that took the test? What was the exact call of the inspector? Put him on the line and let him tell his side of the story, all I have is you telling me he is wrong.
You can get anyone to side with you if you leave out enough information and slant the story your way.
If you reread the post you will find that not all that responded totaly agreed. That's ok, you got what you think you got and it's apparrent you will not concede to maybe being wrong.
Was it lack of fusion? Re read the sections you yourself referenced and show what part allows lack of fusion. I'm not saying it was but you have not said otherwise in anything I've read. And at this pont you can say anything that fits your story. You were the one that used the bend acceptance criteria in reference to the visual inspection, not me. And without all the information how would I be convinced.
You just keep getting argumentative over the issue when I'm just try to get you to open your eyes, you are blinded by your dislike of the guy. I responded to what you put in the forum, which like most often does not include a lot of details. Most people respond to what they have.
As far as I know you may be the cousin, brother or inlaw to whoever is over your head, and you convinced them your way with unsubstaniated accusations. I don't know the full story I've just read yours. And as I teach my inspectors, never take anything at face value, examine, evaluate and recheck. And I have done as much as I can in these communications.
I do know there are holes in your story and there could be more to the issue than any of us really know.
Much to often I have seen an over zealous individual disrupt the workings of many situations.
You have not proved to me that you are right, and I know what I've written is correct and I'm not wrong (based on what I have read here) sorry if I can't side with you, but I still find you lacking.
I employ many CWI's, I discharge as many as I find because their "certifications" aren't worth the paper it's written on. An inspector will make mistakes, I concede to this, I have 14 under my charge in our shop and I have my hands full teaching and directing these individuals. But the one thing I don't tolerate with any of them is for them to be arrogant or "high mighty", thinking every thing they call is correct. But I do expect them to make the calls to the best of their knowledge, and we will work on the rest. My group has the respect of Management, clientele, and outside inspection groups that come in every week for their clients, because of the ethics and practices of Our inspection group. I concede, and correct the errors in my group when provided enough information to justify the change or I back my inspectors.
Like many management groups they will side with production rather than with Quality Control for the dollar rather than the quality, And will dictate the course whether there is justification or not. This is a fact of life in our industry. And yea all is hunky dory now, he was probably threatened with his job, not due to you being right.
So go ahead and have your last say, this is my last response to you and your issue.
thanks and good luck
arrowside,
In your initial post, you said "He said that there should be zero visible defects in the strips prior to bending, or that's it, end of test". If I were you, I'd have asked the CWI to show me in the code where it states that the coupon must have zero visual defects. Sometimes when you ask them to give a code reference to support their claim, they back off and say something like, "Well, I just don't like to see that".
Scott, I think you hold the key to the whole Sheebang here.
There has been blather about an inspectors "experience" telling them that an indication will fail testing. Well we have minimum visual criteria that shall be observed and if it complies than the next step shall be taken... So if the discontinuities are passable to visual, the coupons must be bent even if the inspector thinks a discontinuity will open up under bend testing... It's not his call ever to reject a visually compliant strap even if he has seen 100 out of 100 straps that had acceptable visual discontinuities then fail after bending.
As far as devils advocates go... This is baloney also. Devils are stronger and smarter than men; they require no advocate. Code is dogmatic by nature.. A thing complies or it does not. Making arguments and rejections based on subjective or even objective experiences are a foolish waste of time and wrong. Acceptence and Rejections are made based on compliance or non compliance period.
But there are always loopholes it seems....
We might be able to waste some time talking about terms and language... Terms such as: "the coupon must have zero visual defects" Now this is actually true if the term "Defect" is applied in it's proper context as stated in A3.0 eh? The term Defect by definition means rejectable. Now if we were to say "the coupon must have zero visual discontinuities" this might have a whole different meaning if we were to apply code language with absolute strictness. (which, as you can see by this example is generally a good idea).
But the original post at the top of this mess clears the whole thing up by stating that there were "incluisons" (this term could describe a defect which is always rejectable or a discontinuity which might be rejectable)... But the inclusions were only 1/32...(although it seems the defects shrunk to 1/64th in a later entry by the origninal poster :) ) So if this is in fact the case, the straps shall be bent if code is to be complied with, assuming there is no company policy in place that exceeds the code. (As Joe Kane nailed on the very first response)
Round and round.
Lawrence,
A very good observation, and, if the CWI in question can't follow the visual acceptance criteria in accordance with D1.1, as Joe says... "cut him a check".
By jrw159 
Date 04-07-2008 16:23
Edited 04-07-2008 16:40
Lawrence,
"But the inclusions were only 1/32...(although it seems the defects shrunk to 1/64th in a later entry by the origninal poster"
You and I are a lot alike when it comes to spotting things like this. If one pays attention and lets things run thier course for a while more of the story seems to always surface. I have followed this one closely as well and I am anxiously awaiting a reply to my question asked of arrowside. I do not know that I will get a reply as I think he may already know where I am going with it.
arrowside posted "The porosity problem vanished for both of us when we switched from Ultracore to Esab." This leads me to believe his specimens were rejected as well. Now I am going to go out on a limb here and say that arrowside is a very proud welder, and there is ABSOLUTLY nothing wrong with that. I was and am the same type of welder. I will not say that the inspector was right in not bending the specimens, I will stick with my previous opinion of this, but having said that, could this also be a classic case of "conflict of interest" with arrowside having one of his test specimens rejected and taking it to heart, not looking at it from an unbiased view? Now, again I will say that the inspector was wrong IF and I stress IF I have heard the whole story accuratly and 1/64" was actually 1/64" form example. But as anyone can see by reviewing this thread, it has taken a while to get the whole story, some things have changed and some were not stated at first. Was there a heated discussion between the two of you? The original post made it sound as if arrowside was a unbiased bystander, later we find out from his own admission that he also tested and had porosity issues. This fact, whether you want to admit it or not throws the discussion into a different light, as if this is the case you MAY not have been truly unbiased, and 100% free from any possible conflict of interest. #1 reason inspectors should not inspect thier own welds under most circumstances. The inspector in question could just as easily accuse you of haveing a biased opinion, even if you truly do not. IMO certified inspectors should not produce production welds. It is too easy to be accused of having a conflict of interest even if you do not, and I hope you do not.
Having said all that (whew) I still agree with you arrowside, but the way things came to light, combined with you being a CWI that tested, and I am assuming, as you have not answered, had your specimens rejected along with the other welders, puts you in the position of a possible conflict of interest accusation.
Best of luck, John
[quote])... But the inclusions were only 1/32...(although it seems the defects shrunk to 1/64th in a later entry by the origninal poster ) [/quote]
Lar,
I recongized the shrinkage too...............
You guys have great an understandable input and I appreciate the banter it helps me to grow in my profession. It's good to hear the oppinions and to research the answers.
Don't forget "the power to crush his head"
The first thing is to establish if it was visually acceptable, if it was lack of fusion, is it acceptable? 4.8.1.1(3) "shall have complete fusion", (5)"shall not have cracks, lack of fusion or inadequate joint penetration."
No one has yet to answer this question. Nor can they.
At this point we don't know if it did or did not comply, we have only that word of a bias individual. But I guess everthing I suggest or present isn't applicable in the debate so I will concede to being wrong on this issue and hopefully it is ended.
If the inspector that made the original call is not brought on line how would we ever know, everyone has assumed him wrong just because he is an "Inspector". He did make mistakes, I can see this, his not bending nor his dumb statement does not neccessarily make his call wrong. No one wants to see this, and the inconsistances, as I also noted, seem not to sway anyone.
Now, this is really my last input, I'll cover my horns with my hat and tuck my tale and run.
Woody,
Hold on a minute. "Everyone" has not assumed him wrong. Now of course a lot of this is speculation. First of all I believe the indications in question were referred to by arrowside two different ways. Inclusions at one point and then porosity in another post (was it one or the other or both??)(not sure yet). I do not recall lack of fusion. So lets work with what we have here. IF the specimens show rejectable indications the inspector has no requirement to bend the test specimines. IF this was the case and he did not go forward with the bend, this is his option and he is RIGHT.
I think there are some here like myself that feel the "right" thing to do would be to bend them anyway. Now having said that, there are instances where I would not finish the test. I had an experiance at one point when I tested a gentlemen that came to hire on and he was an employee for another welding shop previously as an "inspector", he held no certifications and never had, they just used him to trouble shoot. Well evedintly this gent somehow at one point in time got ahold of an old copy of D1.1 flipped acouple of pages and "bingo" he's an inspector. Well he provides me with his test specimens, and I see obvious defects. I pull out the v-wac and 6" steel rule to measure, and this guy starts in about "what the heck are you doing, there is nothing wrong with my test. I know what Im doing, I've been doing this for ever!!" growing ever more obnoxious as we progressed. I started to try to explain to him that we would still bend them but at this point he was going to have to retest, due to rejectable defects. This guy Yells at me "don't you try to tell me about the code, I know the code!" So I stood up and asked him if he knew how my contract was worded and he said "NO" of course, so I collected the sample peices and filled my report out. Turned in my reports, charged the company for exactly what they agreed to pay for my services. They called me to test three more welders about two days later. He was one of them and I held them to the code (D1.1) 4.32.1.2 as he was not able to meet 4.32.1.1 (immediate is not two days later.) BTW I still do work for them occasionally.
But you are definatly right that there are tooo maany "inconsistances" and "additions" for my or anyone elses opinions to be anything but speculations.
I sure wish that the inspectors side could be heard, as I am POSITIVE it would get interesting then.
Your friend, John
Guys, I've done it both ways....
I have had coupons that I cut up and bent til there wasn't enough material to hold it in the saw to get another slice off of...even with visible problems, just because I had the time and wanted to use the oportunity to show the welder what he did wrong and ways to improve on the next test. I think this qualifies as further training per 4.32.1.2.
I have also witnessed, cut and bent tests for fabricators who wanted the welder to retest if their coupons had any thing visible, it didn't matter if it passed D1.1 or not. They would ask me not to take the time to bend, just use a sharpie and circle the indications and send the unbent slices back to them to show the welder. This company also kept every strap on file for every welder they ever certified, so they wanted only perfectly clean specimens on file.
The guidelines from the certifying company have to be clear as to how stringent the contract inspector is to be, ...could be as long as it passes the criteria in D1.1 or it could be something stricter.
John
The key words that are in this quote from your post are used twice, "could be"
"...could be as long as it passes the criteria in D1.1 or it could be something stricter."
Who knows?? I am not sure we ever will, just the ones that were there will. Luckily though I think we all can agree, as it appears at one time or another we all have agreed, that with no other criteria other than AWS D1.1 there is no requirement to bend if visual fails, but under normal circumstances it would be good practice to do so.
JohnRW
amen
really, this is the last time honest.
Woody,
Where are you located anyways? You may have posted this but I missed it.
John
Richard, I can't believe you have 14 CWI's working under you. How I would love to have another CWI or two around the shop to bounce ideas and intrepetations of the code off of. That's why I really like this site, it makes up for that.
As far as this issue goes, if the indications were that small, I'd have bent them as well to confirm one way or the other.
My two cents, Chris
Sorry to misslead, I have, 4 CWI's, in the 14 inspectors I have. I can't find them either, and like I may have mentioned I am doing a lot of training along with my other CWI's. I would hire a CWI in a minute, they are just not out there.
Last year I terminated three CWI's, how they got their certification I don't know. They couldn't find their way around the code, I thought I was bad, but these guy's were even worse.
I agree, I might have bent them to, but circumstances don't always allow and it would be the Inspectors call which he is not obligated otherwise.
We are a fast pace shop moving tonnage like no other shop I've ever seen in the 30+ years I've been doing Inspection. We are located in Utah, Ive been with this company only 4 years.
yea I'm a succor, I keep taking the bait, but I'm just responding to other questions outside the topic!?.
Guys- I know that your going to think that this is a cop out, but I just can't go into this any deeper. The twists and turns involved with this situation since my original post are 10 fold. If I get specific about what's been going on and the wrong people see it, it will put me in a situation that I'm not ready for at this point. I have a family to support. If you feel that I mislead you, I do apologize. This was never my intent. All that I wanted to know is if I was interpreting the code correctly, or if I was missing something. I never thought that I would be in a situation where I would actually see a CWI being as unethical as this guy is. And trust me, He is. I know what the right thing to do is, and I know you guys do too, but I'm not going on unemployment because of this loser. I have to believe that as time goes by, this will end up working out in my favor.The 1/32, 1/64 thing was a brain fart in the heat of typing.
Arrowside
there is a process through AWS if an individual is found unetheical, I don't know if it's ever been used, but I, like you, have run into this problem here and there, Ive been tempted in doing it. I never thought you were really wrong in your call, my intent was to keep you thinking and assure you covered every angle before you took any steps that could have back fired on you. Just be careful, I hope now that you settled down you can see that he could have even used the code to justify his call and claimed you just missunderstood or missqouted him. I've done this same thing with my young CWI Leadman, but after he cools done he does realize there is more to it. You may still not agree with what I was saying but reread and look at the questions I asked, could those be an arguement that might have caused the issue to back fire on you. I do like your attitude and "gumtion" though, keep it up, you will probably do well, I would even hire you. Just don't call be "dick".
best of luck
Woody,
Without pinning you down to a commitment, throw out "ballpark" figures for some of the CWI's that are looking for somewhere to go where they will be able to work as well as learn from a group environment, rather than having to "take the plunge" all alone or "be fed to the wolf's" so to speak. I honestly believe there are many CWI's out there that are not utilizing their certification correctly, only because they are intimmidated by the transition. I was lucky enough to be in a position to gain confidence in my abilities before I had to look for work. when I passed my test, I had a CWI position. This position was the only reason I tested. I had two years to work with and had a LOT of help from many people, one of which I have thanked and mentioned in many places and times before, but never here, so "Thank you Dr. Jesse Grantham". So if you are looking for good inspectors, "fish or cut bait" they are out there for the picking's.
Your friend,
John
WJMGW!!!
Jesse is the Man, take it your in Denver area.
was out of town for two days.
I agree. I think we are all in agreement here, even arrowside was right, we all havew our perspective of the issue based on what we had availible.
By jrw159
Date 04-13-2008 14:35
Edited 04-13-2008 14:48
Actually I am working in Dallas right now. But CO Is my long time stomping grounds. I just returned from there early this morning.
jrw
