A respect for the competence and abilities of welders (at least those that any well reasoning engineer or QC Mgr should be using to qual procedures-many a time a good welder has saved my butt-you don't try a qual a procedure with a guy thats using a striker on a tig torch-actually watched that happen to my dismay) that I maintain is the very foundation of my 'cart before the horse' argument against too much 'anality', if I may say it that way, over WPS's. It has always been the case, and always will be the case, that a welders decisions at the coupon, at the joint, determines both the PQR and, if written intelligently, the WPS. Even if the welder is presented with a pre-PQR procedure, even if the parameters in the Pre-PQR are based upon someone else's experience, the welder will determine upon what he sees, upon puddle and arc characterisitcs, upon visual fusion confirmation, etc., if the pre established parameters are valid. The very reason that qualification has to be performed is that all the logic, all the engineering, all the calcs, and tech articles, and metallurgical beard stroking don't mean squat until the hood drops, the arc is lit, and a welder makes it real.
Having said this of course there are 'parameters' that are not to be influenced by the welders. PH, IP, PWHT, joint design, heat input, etc. These are valid engineering and metallurgical decisions. So I guess there is really two tiers of variables. Never really thought about it like that before.
But a WPS is a critical document. Is a minimum safety and quality standard. Is aminimum requirement fto allow some level of verification. So when critiqiing the abuse of WPS's make no mistake that I still support their validity and necessity.

JS, I'm not dismissing or disagreeing on your major points. Only that the approach you, or I, or someone else takes is going to be different. Are we going to meet the minimum code requirements or are we going to produce a document that goes the code mandates and is usable by the people they are intended for?

How we solve the problem of welding documentation is one of personal preference and is strongly influenced by our background. I was a welder and I still get to wear a hood on occasion. The approach I take is different from that an engineer might take. As a welder, I appreciate the value of having a reference source (maybe the WPS) that lists the proper usable voltage range, wire feed speed, and electrode extension for a particular manufacturer's flux cored electrode. I know from experience the root cause for a lot of the problems with FCAW is that the electrode perform best when operated within the parameters recommended by the manufacture.  I can put that information into the WPS or I can let the welder struggle until he stumbles upon the proper settings. How many "bad" welds are going to be produced by the time he gets it right?

I can give you an example of this very situation. I was tasked with straightening out a project where the welders were experiencing a 40% cut out rate on complete joint penetration groove welds.

No WPSs were available on the site.  "Who needs WPSs? We don't need no stinking WPS" was the answer I got when I asked to see them.

I spent the first day walking around and watching how the welders were working. Every welder had set up his equipment to his liking; no two were set the same.

The second day I called a meeting with all the welders. Each welder had to requalify on plate using the welding machine I set up using the manufacturer's recommended parameters. Each welder passed the test without difficulty. I expected as much because each was a seasoned welder. The problem was that the electrode was one they had not used before. From that day onward, the rules were that I set the machines in the morning, I checked them at noon, and if the welder insisted on changing the setting, he got his money. One welder couldn't resist the urge and I paid him off. The cut out rate was less than 0.5% for the remainder of the job. Had the information been made available via a well-written WPS, they wouldn't have needed to hire me. Before I leave the subject, the one thing I heard most often that first day on the job was; "What @#$%@ settings are we supposed to use with this wire?" The welders identified the problem long before I got there, but no one listened.

So again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I simply believe the information contained in the WPS has to go beyond the minimums required by the "code", be it ASME, AWS, or military welding standard. As a welding consultant, I have to give the welder the information needed to perform the job correctly.

Does it all have to be in the WPS? No, but it should be made available by some mechanism that is controlled to ensure consistency.

One, all-inclusive WPS? Maybe, if that is the only document the welders have to work with.

A WPS with supporting annexes listing the appropriate base metals, filler metals, joint details, etc.? Sure, why not if the complexity or variety of the work justifies such a solution. 

The bottom line is that each client is unique with different needs. It's my task, as a consultant, to understand those needs, even if the client doesn't, and develop a welding documentation program that meshes with the existing program (if there is one) or give them a package that provides all the information the welder needs. After all, the goal is to keep the welder productive and to ensure welds that meet the applicable code and the end-user's expectations (which may be much more stringent than the code).

The code or standard doesn't tell us how to write a WPS. Some provide more direction than others, but most of us learn by doing and by incorporating lessons learned by our experiences. The code is going to "demand" a certain level of information, but they leave the "writer" to flesh out the level of detail needed to meet the intended goals.

No one wants to read a dissertation on writing a WPS, so I need to stop typing.

Best regards - Al

I use a similar approach with clients that do a large variety of work. It seem to work very well in many situations, if as you stated, training is included to show the welders how to use the information.

As a "for instance", we expect the welder's welds to meet "Code", but how many welders own a copy or have read the "code" or know what requirements he has to meet? What a great place to place the relevant information needed by the welder, in a manual. Now he can reference a document that gives him the information he needs.

Best regards - Al

thanks your input Jon and not trying to sound like a complete idiot but i've never had any type of formal welding traing can you please explain this in english sorry if i insulted you was not intened i just dont know all the codes and there meanings i've been working in the oil patch and the places i have worked for dont call for all these codes heck they dont even ask for certs which helps me i've never been certed as long as it dont leak and looks good they are happy