CAWI vs CWI Question

By hogan

Date 08-06-2008 15:47

A cawi can, in some instances, work under direct supervision of a cwi

By Donnie Buchanan (*)

Date 08-06-2008 16:41

The way I'm interpreting AWS 5.1, a CAWI can not certify any weld.
The CAWI must work under direct supervision of a CWI who has the
final authority to certify the welding.
Is this a correct interpretation?

By HgTX

Date 08-06-2008 16:51

That's my interpretation. As far as I can tell, there's not that much a CAWI can do more than someone with no certification at all. Last I heard, AWS was only issuing the CAWI these days to people who flunked the CWI. (Or something like that.)

Hg

By jrw159

Date 08-06-2008 19:11

The A in CAWI means "Your A** did not PASS" There are instances when a CAWI could potentially be in a position to sign off on WQTR's and weld inspection as stated by Pipewelder_1999, however this is not likely to happen. Possible but not probable. I would certainly be leary/wary of any instance where a CAWI is doing weld inspection without the direct supervision of a CWI.

JMHO FWIW

jrw159

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 08-06-2008 17:11

Donnie

As the author of the words "...within audible and visible range..." language, I can assure that there must be a CWI or SCWI supervising the CAWI at all times in the job. The CAWI is the only person in the world who cannot perform weld inspection operations without direct and constant supervision. The CAWI cannot sign off anything, unless the CWI or SCWI is there to countersign.

A CAWI that wants to do inspections should surrender his CAWI certificate to the AWS and become uncertified.

By js55

Date 08-06-2008 17:16

LMAO!!!!
Obviously this discussion has an interesting history at high levels.

By Donnie Buchanan (*)

Date 08-06-2008 18:19

What it all basically boils down to is this. If you obtain CAWI status it just means you a step closer to CWI.
Being that you only have to take that portion or portions of the exam that you did not score 72% or above
to obtain your CWI status. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

By Donnie Buchanan (*)

Date 08-06-2008 18:20

Joe Kane, thanks for your reply. You made a very good point.

By hogan

Date 08-06-2008 19:53

A CAWI that wants to do inspections should surrender his CAWI certificate to the AWS and become uncertified.

Joe,
I do believe that there is a need for the cawi. An example, on a previous job there was an inspector who only had a few years in the trade. Not enough to qualify for the cwi. He took the cwi test and was certified as a cawi until the experience requirement was met.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 08-07-2008 02:36 Edited 12-14-2008 18:58

JS5, Donnie, Hogan

Hogan, I agree with you when you are talking about a person who passed the exam at the 72% level, but needs up to three more years experience to be able to be a CWI. But that is not the only reason we still have the CAWI certification on the books.

However, for the most part, the CAWIs were the people who got as low a 50% on the exam. We had those people who FAILED THE TEST performing tests, qualifying welders, and even inspecting whole projects which they were not qualified to do. We had one enterprising former CAWI, who (eventually) failed to get even the 50% level on his third try, publish a press release in the Welding Journal touting himself as the chief CWI of the testing company he worked for!

How can AWS appear to sanction the work of a person who doesn't pass the examination and meet the knowledge and experience criteria??????

So, there were no machinations or politics involved in getting rid of the CAWIs. There was some staff persons who wanted to keep them for the income they gave to the society. More reasonable heads on the Certification Committee felt that we were giving the rest of the CWIs a bad name, and damaging the professional value of the full credential by keeping the CAWI as it originally was. Now you have to get a higher mark to pass at the CAWI Level. Today you can only be a CAWI for one three year period during your lifetime. We had salesmen, college professors and detailers, who had the CAWI yet somehow were able to renew and recertify for 18 years and more!
.
So, today if a CAWI wants to keep from violating the Code of Ethics and risking lifetime disbarment, the only solution I know of, is to surrender the CAWI certification and work under some other certification. Another thing to remember, is that if the employer directs you to inspect alone, it is still your fault and your ethics violation if you get caught. Your boss bears no responsibility. - Just you! So, turning the Certification in and becoming un-certified is probably the only solution. You cannot even claim that you are working as a Visual Level Two, as long as you are certified as a CAWI!!!

I myself go after any CAWI, I find working alone or signing off inspection work, like a rabid dog. I charge them with an Ethics Violation as soon as I have the evidence. I found one near my home, and charged him. Eventually we met in a meeting, and discussed the incident. It turned out that his employer doctored his wall certificate and submitted it to the Transit Authority, and he knew nothing about it! The man I talked about in the second paragraph agreed to cease and desist, but did the same thing a few years later!!!!

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-07-2008 02:20

What about the words "Shall be able.." ?

Was that worded loosely for a reason.

Being able to do something is much different than being required to do something. There may be some other text that clarifies this more but I figured you could enlighten me on the intent of that wording.

Thanks

Gerald

By ctacker (****)

Date 12-09-2008 22:42

Hey Joe, I know you worked on the commitee's, so I'll let you answer this.

If I were to do a job to AWS D1.1, Clause 6.1.4.3 does not state under DIRECT supervision.
doesn't this mean that a CAWI can work as an assistant and only be supervised on a (preferably) daily basis and not under eye or earshot of a CWI?

not that I would use a CAWI but I would like to know the answer to this one!

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-10-2008 21:44

Carl

It has nothing to do with D1.1 or any other contractual obligation.

I wrote the "In visible and Audible range" wording. I felt and the rest of the Sub-Committee and the Main Certification Committee agreed with that wording. We look at this way. The CAWI flunked the test and was otherwise unqualified. The AWS shouldn't be pretending that the CAWI can perform inspection just because the Employer thinks it is OK. We are legally saying that the CAWI is not qualified per the QC-1 / B5.1 standard to perform welding inspection. We don't want to be liable for allowing the CAWI to endanger the public using our (AWS') name as cover!

Now. It is not any kind of Code of Ethics Violation for YOU to use your CAWI employee any way you see fit (It may be otherwise illegal) . It is a violation of the Code of Ethics for the CAWI to accept any kind of weld inspection job that does not have continuous supervision by a CWI or SCWI. (End of the day or occasional checks by the CWI, don't cut it.) The responsibility falls on the CAWI alone. If he feels he will get fired for not working as directed because of his obligation to the Code of Ethics, he can legally surrender his CAWI Certification, become de-certified, and then he would no longer violate our Code of Ethics by following directives from his employer.

Of Course if you, as an employer know that this person cannot work alone, and you direct him to anyway, you should consider yourself morally responsible. If you are sued, it will probably work against you.

Joe Kane

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 12-11-2008 03:07 Edited 12-11-2008 03:11

Hey Joe,

Thanks for the comments. Some of your comments raised some questions. Some which may or may not be answered but I will put them out.

1) Are there any statistics available for how many code of ethics violations there are for CWI's or CAWI's ?

2) Also, are there many CAWI's turning in their certification ? Either for the need to inspect on their job or other reasons ? If so how many or percentage.

3) Does the QC1 standard or any other indicate any action can be taken against a CAWI or CWI for violating the standard other than revocation ?

The QC1 standard refers to "sanctions" however does not spell those out clearly. It does refer to another document."AWS Administrative Procedures for Alleged Violations" . And the one I found clearly spelled out the method for handling the alleged violations. I believe this is the one referred to however the QC1 standard did not refer to a document number. (kinda odd for such a 'binding' standard) . Anyway, that standard (http://files.aws.org/certification/docs/cert3449.pdf) states below what can be done.

(1) revocation, suspension or refusal of renewal of an AWS certification issued the
Respondent, or
(2) issuance of a reprimand, or
(3) other actions as deemed appropriate.

4) Have any of the above (1,2 or 3) ever been done because a CAWI was performing inspection on his job when such job did not require a CWI or CAWI ?

5) Also, are there any cases in which AWS has been help "liable" for anything that has been done by either a CAWI or CWI ?

Thanks in advance for any info you have and you patience with my questions/comments. The topic is very interesting to me.

edited to add link.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-11-2008 16:38 Edited 12-13-2008 01:18

Pipewelder, Carl

I will answer your Questions as best I can. Please remember that my answers are not necessarily the opinion of the AWS or the Certification Committee. They are my answers only.

In answer to Question #1: I do not think there is any compilation of statistical data. There was none when I was the Ethics Committee Chairman. This information is very confidential for some strange reason. I know that they will not publish the names, even though AWS clearly has the right to do so. I have long argued for "open books" and public records on this subject, but our Lawyers will not agree to it. For Instance; there is one large third party inspection company that routinely used completely unsupervised CAWIs. Charges were filed against the manager of this company several times for using the CAWIs. The problem is, that this manager did not violate any article of our COE. Why should AWS be in the position of sullying this persons good name, is he didn't violate the COE?!?!? However there was a person in the Mid-West who actually had the stones to get his picture published in the Welding Journal announcing his promotion to a level of management in the inspection company he worked for, saying he was a CWI, when in fact he was only a CAWI. I preferred Ethics Violations charges against him as did another local competitor who was a real CWI. Back then, he was offered a "Plea Bargain", (My Term) which he accepted. When he violated the terms of the Plea Bargain, he was again charged, but the was again handled administratively with another consent agreement. He finally actually took the exam a fourth time, and failed to even get CAWI level, which at that time was 50%. So, AWS is afraid of the liability issue, and does not publish much about the ethics violations.

In answer to Question #2:I do not know. I know of one CAWI who is an engineer (PE), who did not turn in his CAWI, but who did not list it on his CV. I urged him to turn in his CAWI, but he was close to expiration, and he wasn't doing welding inspection, so he didn't deem it necessary. I have recently urged two other newly minted CAWIs to surrender their certifications. They both declined. One re-took his Hands-On test on 12-6-08, about three weeks after he failed the first test. The other will be re-taking the Code Book Exam in January in Miami.

In answer to Question #3: Yes, the standard has language that indicates sanctions "up to". In one case that was handled when I was Ethics Committee Chairman, (under the older "Administrative Procedures" ) I offered the two respondents six month and one year suspensions respectively, demotions to CAWI status, and required them to re-test to the D 1.1 code when they sat for the next CWI Exam. They accepted. In a case before I was Chairman, a person had Altered the credentials and done work on a military contract two years earlier. The military preferred the charge against him. He was found guilty in a hearing panel, and stripped of his CWI. (He had re-tested in the meantime, and had gotten a real CWI.) He made an appeal to the Board of Directors, claiming hardship, two children, wife Etc., and was allowed to continue to practice with just a reprimand. Many violators just get a nasty letter from the AWS Attorney, and surrender the phony documents. Often this is the only recourse AWS has, because the violator isn't even a member, nor has any kind of certifications from the AWS.

In answer to Question #4: Not exactly. I preferred charges against a CAWI for an altered CAWI stamp and wall certificate, and it was handled administratively by a cease and desist letter from our AWS Lawyer. A few years later, I found out that the Company had altered his certificate and his stamp, without his knowledge. He never used his CAWI, and was mostly involved in roofing and concrete/rebar inspection and subway track inspection.

In answer to question #5: No, not to my knowledge. It would be pretty hard to blame AWS for what a CWI does on the job. We have good weasel words in the standard. In addition, it used to be an ANSI Standard. Have you ever heard of someone suing the AMA for the actions of a Doctor? But, if the AMA made an exception to allow one person to be called a medical doctor, who didn't pass the required examinations, they would be liable.

IN ANSWER TO Carl; I have often tried to get rid of the CAWI certification during the Certification Committee meetings. I have come close a few times, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. The passing score to get a CAWI has been increased form 50% to 60%. There is no more renewal for a CAWI. You can only be a CAWI once in a lifetime. We don't issue CAWI Stamps anymore. I think this is as good as it will get.

I don't think AWS should make anything clearer than it is now. It may not be a violation of an article of the AWS COE to use a CAWI, but it certainly is immoral!!!! Why should we appear to acquiesce to that?!?!?!

Joe Kane

By ctacker (****)

Date 12-11-2008 05:36

Thanks for replying Joe, Why cant AWS get rid of the CAWI for failed tests and just keep it for those who don't have the time in but passed with CWI scores?
Also, wouldn't it be wise to put the code of ethics in the codebooks. If an employer hires a CAWI how are they to know that its not a violation of ethics by just reading the code book to which they work?

Carl
I'm also looking forward to your answers to Pipewelder_1999's questions

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-11-2008 17:01

Carl

The person who "for those who don't have the time in but passed with CWI scores" still are not qualified. They do not meet the experience requirement.

Joe Kane

By ctacker (****)

Date 12-11-2008 17:57 Edited 12-11-2008 19:48

I know that Joe, But why cant they be the only ones who get CAWI , instead of giving it to those who fail the CWI because of scores?

Edit: I read above post and got my answer. Thanks Joe!

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 12-12-2008 01:29

Carl

There are a number of people on the Committee. They all have opinions. When the vote is tallied, the CAWI Stays. Period. End of discussion, the "tribe has spoken" as they say on TV nowadays.

Can the issue be brought up again? Sure it can, but we are paying for all the expenses for that meeting out of our own pockets, and I for one don't need to waste three hours debating the subject over and over again!

Joe Kane

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-06-2008 18:52 Edited 08-06-2008 18:57

Understand tha the limitation imposed by the QC1 standard would only apply in cases in which compliance with that standard was required or referred to by contract documents.

A steel fabricator may manufacture a widget in accorance with the American(and associated importers) Widget Societies AWS ou812.

The ou812 standard may have a requirement for inspectors to have visual accuity and be trained in accordance with the requirements of that standard.

If the inspector has met those requirements and is given the duties of that position he/she may qualifiy welders, witness PQR's blah Blah.

If nothing else indicates otherwise, this CAWI can sign the bottom line on t he welder performance qualifcation papers, inspect welds, and write reports. No need for a CWI.

Can he put is CAWI number on those report, I think it can. There is no Mis representation of the facts, the code of ethics has been met. If youi are a CAWI without a supervising CWI is that credential then worthless? "On a job requiring inspection in accordance with a code or specification that indicates a CWI is required, being a CAWI is of no value. On a job that does not require a CWI or CAWI, then your credentials are an Extra.

Anyone straighten me out if I am going astray. I just wanted to get a few related facts out.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-06-2008 19:13

Also understand that the requirements and allowable duties stated above can be done by ANYONE.

That may have been the point Mr. Kane was making above regarding certification and turning it in.

The inspections you perform may or may not require a CWI. That will dictate what yiu can and cannot do.

By 803056

Date 08-07-2008 01:56 Edited 08-07-2008 02:09

The following excerpts from QC1-2006 may be helpful in determining what a CAWI can do.

4.4 The CAWI shall be able to perform inspections,
under the direct supervision of a SCWI or CWI within
visible and audible range, and as defined for the AWI as
in AWS B5.1, Specification for the Qualification of
Welding Inspectors. It is the SCWI or CWI, however,
who has responsibility for certifying that welded assemblies
conform to workmanship and acceptance criteria.

11.6 Unauthorized Practice. Any violation of any part
of the standard of conduct prescribed by this standard if
related to a SCWI's, CWI's, or CAWI's occupation,
including any violation of the Code of Ethics contained
in this standard, shall constitute an unauthorized practice
subject to the imposition of sanctions.

In my opinion the CAWI has agreed to the conditions set forth in QC1, including the Code of Ethics, by accepting the AWS credential (CAWI or otherwise). In the event the CAWI is required by his/her employer to perform duties above and beyond those permitted by QC1 it would be in the individual's best interest to surrender the CAWI credential so as not to be in violation of QC1. At the very least, the CAWI should not be stamping/signing any document unless it is countersigned by a CWI or SCWI.

I don't disagree with pipewelder that anyone can perform inspections, write WPSs, or qualify welders provided there is no contract language or statue in place that requires an AWS credential. However, as stated before, the CAWI, CWI, or SCWI has agreed to a code of conduct as a condition of accepting the AWS credential. Even when QC1 is not a contractual obligation, by agreeing to the term and conditions of QC1 as a precondition of being issued the AWS credential, you are obligated to abide by the requirements of QC1, if you can not for what ever reason, the credential should be surrendered.

Best regards - Al

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-07-2008 02:15

I do not think that someone who has met the requirements for a CAWI is in any way prohibited from performing the duties that may be required of them in their job provided that job is not requireing them perform inspections that would require the representation of a CAWI or CWI. If no reference to QC1 or AWS C(A)WI is made by an employer or the contract, then the requirements of QC1 mean nothing.

Most codes do not require CWIs, Many projects do not. On those projects, a person has a CAWI has the ability to perform whatever inspections their employer authorize them to perform.

Does someone that completely fails the test have the ability to do more than someone who scores a 71? If they do someone, really needs to talk a close look at the spots on their cash cow. That is NUTS!

The wording "Shall be able" is kinda loose. Why not say , a CAWI must perform all inspections under the direct visual and audible supervisions of a CWI. The CWI has the responsibility for certification of any inspections referencing this standard.

By 803056

Date 08-07-2008 02:37

"Shall be able" means that the individual has to have the ability, that they can, that they have the capability to perform, etc., now this is the hard part, wait for it, wait for it:

"under the direct supervision of a SCWI or CWI within visible and audible range, "

Pretty clear to me.

If you don't have the CAWI, CWI, SCWI credential you are free to do what ever pleases you. If you want the AWS credentials you have to abide by QC1. You had to agree to abide by the document, including the code of ethics as a precondition to being awarded the AWS credential. Remember signing the application to take the examination? It's like the Boy Scout oath, you live by the oath where you are wearing the uniform or not.

Best regards - Al

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-07-2008 04:37

So what that paragraph says is

the cawi has to have the ability to perform NOW WAIT, WAIT FOR IT

under the direct supervision of a SCWI or CWI within visible and audible range.

I agree that the sentance says the cawi has to have the ability to perform under the direct supervision of a SCWI or CWI within visible and audible range.

I do remember signing the application. I have done it . I have also read the current QC1 standard and cannot find anything prohibiting the abilities of a CAWI, CWI, or SCWI.

As I indicated in the other post, I am open for enlightenment. I am just not reading the words to say something other than what comes to my mind. What comes to my mind is EXACTLY what you say. The cawi has to have the ability to perform under the direct supervision of a SCWI or CWI within visible and audible range.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 08-07-2008 02:48

Pipewelder_1999

Just tell me his name and send me hard evidence of any CAWI working alone, doing any type of weld inspection. The only person in the world who cannot inspect welds is a CAWI. I will gladly prefer the ethics violations charges against him.

As for 71% passing grade. Not "NUTS". The lowest passing mark in medical school gets the title "Doctor", the next lower mark gets kicked out of medical school. The lowest man in the class at West Point Military Academy gets the title "Lieutennant". anyone who doesn't pass. becomes a Specialist 5th Class and doesn't graduate.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-07-2008 04:30

Then why in the world would one not just call the 71% a FAIL! Why would one be restricted MORE than someone who has not taken the test.

Again, I can see it in the cases where a CWI or CAWI is referred to by a contract an CAWI is required to follow the rules of QC1. Howver I still feel those rules do not clearly prohibut that person from inspecting. Thos points follow below. But in any other case, the fact that the Q&C committe can govern what one does in their private employement is crazy.

If the person with a 71% score becomes less able to inspect a weld than someone who has never passed a test t hen I think something is wrong.

What if the CAWI is a welder, can he not inspect his own weld ? That is a TYPE of weld inspection.

So lets say the guy passes the test but doesn't have the time in. His company needs him to inspect. Does he just turn in his CAWI, an then 1 year later have to be re-instated for some fee that probably incorporates a total of 10 minutes of someone entering some information on a computer. That seems a bit odd.

I may just be a little slow on the whole thing but it seems we have become certification and documentation crazy. I may not be literate enough to interpret the standard. But the use of "shall be able" is by no means a statement that binds someone from doing something else.

The only reference I found to a CAWI performing inspections is the "... The CAWI shall be able to perform inspections,
under the direct supervision.." paragraph.

So a SCWI "shall be able.." as indicated below.

4.1 The SCWI shall be able to perform inspections,
supervise one or more CWIs, CAWIs, and/or NDE personnel,
prepare inspection procedures, review and interpret
joining procedures, conduct audits of vendors and/or
organizations providing materials or services to the
project, and ensure that the work performed and the
records maintained conform to the requirements of the
applicable standards and other contract documents and
perform all SWI duties listed in AWS B5.1,

A CWI SHALL BE ABLE ...

4.2 The SCWI and CWI shall be able to perform inspections
or to verify that the work inspected and records
maintained, conform to the requirements of the applicable
standards and perform all WI duties listed in AWS
B5.1, Specification for the Qualification of Welding
Inspectors.
4.3 The SCWI and CWI shall be able to certify the qualification
of welders to various codes and specifications.
The requirements of the AWS QC7 Certified Welder
program and the National Registry of AWS Certified
Welders are outside the scope of this standard.

Does that mean that I cannot do these things as a person who is ONLY a CWI ? No mention is made of these duties for a CWI that I can see. Just like no mention of inspecting without the supervision of a CWI/SCWI for a CAWI.

Questions 1 ) In the case of a CAWI inspecting a weld without the supervision of a CWI, that inspector has performed duties in addition to what he "shall be able" to do. Is that a violation of the QC1 standard ?

Question 1.5) What if the CWI is not inspecting but he is preparing ITP's, reviewing welder certifications for code compliance, verifying welder continuity etc. Is that a violation ?

Question 2 ) In the case of a CWI performing performing duties listed for a SCWI, that inspector has performed duties outside of what he "shall be able" to do as listed in Para 4.2 and 4.3. Is that a violation of t he QC1 standard? The 4.2 and 4.3 paragraph use the same "shall be able" statement.

If the answer to number 1 OR 1.5 is yes, then the answer to number 2 is yes. I have documented experience as a CWI and have been certified 3 times. During all of those time frames I have conducted audits of vendors, reviewed and interpreted joining procedures, prepared inspection procedures and many of the other things listed under a SCWI? If that warrants a violation of the code of ethics or as seen by the Q&C committee, then I guess its back to flippin burgers and brain surgery.

I agree that the intent of the shall be able may have been to restrict the abilities of a CAWI however the words are the same for the others. I cannot find a different context in any of the statements that would lead me to believe that shall be able has a different meaning in relationship to duties for a CAWI than it does for a SCWI or CWI.

It appears to me that either (a) I have violated the QC1 standard since "shall be able" restricts anything else from being performed unless explicitly stated by "shall be able, (b) or the wording says what it says, (c) or the wording needs to be revised.

If (b) is the case and the words have the same meaning in all cases then any representation of the QC1 standard as saying something else would appear to be a violation of the standard.

Some text from the recent QC1 standard

The Committee shall have the power to
suspend, refuse renewal, or revoke the SCWI's, CWI's,
or CAWI's certification for misrepresentation of facts
regarding personal qualifications, status, assignments,
etc., relating to SCWI's, CWI's, or CAWI's certifications
whether such misrepresentation was made at the
time of application or on subsequent applications
(renewal, etc.). The Committee may place on probation
or reprimand a certificate holder, if found guilty of any
unauthorized practice (as outlined in 11.6 Unauthorized
Practice) in a proceeding conducted in conformance to
AWS Administrative Procedures for Alleged Violations
of AWS Certification Programs (available from the AWS
Certification Department).
12.2 Courts. The Committee may apply to any court of
competent jurisdiction for further enforcement of its
administrative decisions and rulings.

11.6 Unauthorized Practice. Any violation of any part
of the standard of conduct prescribed by this standard if
related to a SCWI's, CWI's, or CAWI's occupation,
including any violation of the Code of Ethics contained
in this standard, shall constitute an unauthorized practice
subject to the imposition of sanctions.

Finally, the American Welding Society does not monitor or enforce compliance with this standard, nor does it have the
power to do so.

Mr. Kane, I highly respect your opinion on these types of matters however my understanding of the english language and habits I have developed are blocking me from seeing this as meaning anything other than what it says. If the "shall be able" means different things in different paragraphs I suggest the use of a sentance that CLEARLY prohibits what one can do. Even removing the "be able" portion would clear things up in my mind.

For all readers, please understand that my opinion on this does not make it so. I just want to present my views for discussion. I truly think that limiting the abilities of a CAWI in cases where a CAWI is not called for is outsie the scope of QC1. I also think that the wording for the duties of a CAWI is not restrictive but only lists things that the CAWI shall be able to do. (HE?SHE MUST HAVE THAT ABILITY) .

I'm goin to bed and may get up and read this and realize that im still just a "dumb ole welder". But right now, I feel strongly about what I have written. That doesn't make it right!

Of course I may wake up in a few days with that Sonic hat on since I am no longer a CWI :)

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-07-2008 04:44

To compare the abilty of the CWI program to assure the quality of inspectors to the institutions you referenced above seems a bit extreme.

It is possible you have met some higher quality CWI's than I have. I have met a few Annapolis graduates and have yet to be less than impressed with their ability to perform the job they were trained for. Westpoint may be different.

Dr's, well thats another story. (Just kidding, I just haven't talked to that many Dr's.)

By Pipeslayer (**)

Date 08-07-2008 13:51

I've run into several CAWI's posing as real inspectors. They do not like to be exposed like a cockroach in the light. It is common to see them work witout a CWI present. That visable
and audible range is pretty big with some companies.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-07-2008 15:03

A CAWI reprenting himself as a CWI, thats a violation. A CAWI representing himself as a "Welding INspector" is fine in my book.

I say based upon the contents of the code, a CAWI can inspect welds. Can he inspect welds where a CWI is required- NO.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 08-07-2008 17:26 Edited 08-07-2008 17:47

Pipewelder_1999, Pipelayer:

Pipewelder; You make a good logical case as to your proposed interpretations of the quoted QC-1 paragraphs. You have a convincing command of the English language and probably would have made a very convincing case to the Certification Committee when this part of QC-1 was being prepared in Subcommittee. I will bring this argument to the Subcommittee meeting.

In the Subcommittee deliberations, we considered other wording, but, for legal reasons, and to conform to the language standard that we use, and the graphic identity standard that we use, and to conform to the AWS Definitions, ETC., ETC., ETC., AND just because that wording was there in the " Strawman" wording at the time of voting by both the Subcommittee and the Main Committee, the wording you see is what you get.

Wording aside, The intent of the Committee is made clear to you now. The CAWI cannot work alone. He failed the test. There are those who did not fail and are CAWI's simply because they do not have enough experience or education to complete the qualification to be a CWI. The only reason we have the CAWI right now, is for those people.

I would rather see some more testing, and give anyone who can pass the additional testing, get the certification, even if they have no experience at all.   However, it is impractical for AWS to give a national examination in a reasonable classroom environment, and make the testing relevant and comprehensive enough to assure some minimal level of competence and ability. So, like many other professions, experience, training and education are required prerequisites. I would love to have a "Peer Review" system that would determine everyone's competence and abilities. Who could afford it? Look at what it takes to get a NACE Coatings Inspector Peer Review.

I compared the pass / fail number to the graduates at med schools and the USMA, West Point, just to show that every profession that has a licensure examination or titular examinations has a has a cut off score. If you pass, you get the license. If you do not get the passing mark, you don't get the license. It is generally not considered "unfair" to have a cut off score!?!?! I think it is kind of scary that the man who got a 65 in med school can hang out a shingle as soon as the ink is dry on his state license, yet the man that got 64 cannot.   However, we can't have a sliding tier of "Almost a Doctor", or "Almost a Lieutenant", or "Almost an Ensign", or "Just Barely Passed Nurse". It doesn't work It could not be fairly administered as a "System".

I have met a few incompetent CWIs. Some are incompetent because they work for inspection companies that do hit and miss spot inspections, and do not inspect before, during and after.. I am lucky that I am with a company that sees the project through from beginning to end because we work for State DOTs and other Government agencies. I also have a supervisor who reviews my reports and visits me on the job and counsels me when I an deficient. (I Work for Pennoni Associates) When I worked for myself as a consultant, I had to continually walk away from clients who wanted me to perform selective inspections and write specially crafted and worded reports, so they could convince the owner that everything was hunky-dory. I worked with one client pretty steadily for three years, and one day I was sent to a subcontractor where they were welding TYK connections with short circuiting GMAW, no Qualified WPSs, no qualified welders, and really bad welds. I refused to write anything that would help them get past inspection requirements, and told the client that he could never use me like that again!!! I haven't gotten any more work from him. I know that the Port Authority of NY & NJ gets between 30 and 70 phony CWIs and CAWIs (who cut the "A" out of their stamp) every year. I can't get the Port Authority to send me the evidence, because they have a policy against it. (I am a member of the Ethics Subcommittee and I would love to bring charges against those people.)

As for CWIs who fall into the "general incompetence" category, "Incompetence" is not a violation of our Code of Ethic and code of practice. It is not a violation to make a mistake, or even lots of mistakes. It is not automatically a violation of the Code of Ethics to miss bad welds or miss checking out one side of a part, or signing off a piece (that you accidently did not inspect,) by mistake. Some of the activities you listed that may be performed by a CAWI without direct supervision may or may not be violations. It depends on the circumstances.

Many CWIs who fill out WPSs don't seem to know the difference between "specification" and "classification". That may make them incompetent, if they are writing WPSs for a Nuclear plant, but not else where in general.   The Certification Committee knows that WPSs and WPQRs and Welder Testing and WPQR Testing are areas where we need to do some more testing and training for the CWI Program. The B-5 Qualification Committee and the Certification Committee will be doing a gap analysis and address this in the near future.

Our system is not perfect, but it has worked pretty well for thirty years, and the Committee is always consireding improvements.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-07-2008 18:20

What about the questions?

Is the meaning of the sentance relative to CAWI's a restriction? Is then it not a restriction for the CWI's performing SCWI work ?

I can see no "legal reasons" that the statement for a CAWI cannot say what it means "A CAWI must work under the direct supervision of a CWI or SCWI".

Our entire ability to communicate is based upon words and common understanding of how words are joined to make sentences. The above sentance I made is very clear. However the statement in the standard is similar to statements for CWI's and SCWI's in its structure.

If your response represents the commitee, what about a CWI who performs the duties of an SCWI. I would think that that has to be addressed. Does it say what it says or say what it doesn't say ? If what you are telling me about the CAWI is true, then I have violated the rules of the code. I have performed the duties of an SCWI while being CWI Number 90041071, 98060641 and 07010011. If the wording means the same. Those are the numbers you need.

I have no idea what strawman wording is. I would just expect people that I assume work with codes, standards, and specifications to have the ability to document something in a manner that the meaning is clear without making assumptions.

If the CAWI paragraph has a different meaning than the paragraph for the others, my ability to read and understand "AWS Wording" may be faltering.

If that had ever been a CWI test question, how was it worded? That one question could have been the difference between being able to continue inspecting (Complete Failure or CWI) or not being able to inspect ANY MORE (CAWI)

Par 4.1 t hru 4.3 CLEARLY state what each inspector type shall be able to do. No restriction is placed on any other duties. Only a minimum.

Para 4.4 states the same as it is read. Nothing in its wording indicates otherwise.

If anyone has EVER lost a job due to interpreting PARA 4.4 as a restriction on what you can do, I think legal action would be warranted. It is clearly eiter a poorly written document that should not be used in matters related to someones livelyhood, OR it is being interpreted incorrectly.

I see that you are on one of the committees. Therefore I would think that with all of the information here, the committe stands that para 4.4 wording is not to be interpreted in a manner similar to the preceeding paragraphs under the same section titled "Functions of Certified Personnel".

Is that a true statement ?

This whole thing is extremely troubling. When I indicated I was open to correction, I felt there would be some written statement somewhere that clarified this. Something I had missed in the code. Yet I am still no longer convinced.

I figured a few more would enlighten me to my inability to understand the written code. I will prepaere a formal request for interpretation and send it in so I will at least know I officially unable to understand the QC1 standard.

I realize that the idea that a CAWI cannot inspect without a CWI has been around for years. I just don't see it in the standard. Kinda like downhill welds are weaker, weave beads fall apart, and you have to take a SS test to be qualified for SS GTAW.

Maybe as I read over some more responses, I will come to know what a fool I have been reading something into t he code that was not there. Please post em up.

Gerald Austin
CWI (maybe),
Chairman, Austin Household Child Welfare Fund
CoChair, Austin Household Animal Welfare Fund

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 08-07-2008 22:00

Pipewelder_1999

There is possibly nothing wrong with your proposed "A CAWI must work under the direct supervision of a CWI or SCWI". wording. Your "ability to read and understand "AWS Wording" is not faltering. There is a lot to be said for your suggestion. As I said in an earlier reply, I am going to present you idea to the Subcommittee.

HOWEVER, there is also NOTHING wrong with the wording as it exists today. It appears that you believe that the wording "...under the direct supervision of a SCWI or CWI within visible and audible range,..." somehow does NOT constitute a restriction. To me, it is like you do not want to read the whole sentence and accept it as one idea. If you are an AWS CAWI, the AWS does not allow you to perform the inspections without tight supervision.

Basically, if you are a CAWI, you flunked the test, (unless you are one of those persons who just do not have the requisite experience / education combination). If you do not want to abide by that restriction, and do not feel that it is fair, do not become a CAWI. You can use the B5.1 and become a company certified inspector (as long as you are not a CAWI.

If you were on the QC-1 Certification Subcommittee, you could also make direct proposals and arguments for a change in th wording. If you were on the B5.1 Qualification Subcommittee, you could propose and argue for different restrictions, responsibilities, and duties.

4.4 The CAWI shall be able to perform inspections,
under the direct supervision of a SCWI or CWI within
visible and audible range, and as defined for the AWI as
in AWS B5.1, Specification for the Qualification of
Welding Inspectors. It is the SCWI or CWI, however,
who has responsibility for certifying that welded assemblies
conform to workmanship and acceptance criteria.

There is no restriction in the wording for the WI / CWI that prevents him from performing the duties of the SWI / SCWI.   This lack of restriction is one of the items that reduces the average CWI's desire to become an SCWI. The CWIs that I talk to often ask "Why Should I" I already do all the things listed in the B5.1 as a CWI. Why should I spend the money for a certification that isn't required anywhere, and doesn't really qualify me to do anything new?

As for your statement; "If anyone has EVER lost a job due to interpreting PARA 4.4 as a restriction on what you can do, I think legal action would be warranted. It is clearly either a poorly written document that should not be used in matters related to someones livelyhood, OR it is being interpreted incorrectly. I disagree. Since when would it be unreasonable for any certifying organization to place restrictive wording on it's product?   If your employer wants you to be a CAWI and work alone, that is the employer's right and it is up to you to decide whether you want to take the chance on getting caught.   Of course, in the US of A, almost anyone can sue anyone over anything, so I would agree with you there.

Paragraph 4,1 through 4.3 do not spell out restrictions, but In my opinion, the Paragraph 4.1 does spell out a restriction. While I cannot speak for the whole Committee, I personally wrote the "visible and audible range" wording and the Subcommittee and the Main Committee voted for it. It was clearly the intent to restrict the CAWI.

I look forward to your formal RFI to the Committee, although I seem to remember that there is already an "Official interpretation" on this subject.

Joe Kane

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-08-2008 00:58

I am having a hard time understanding whare I am missing the differences we have regarding meaning however I can see how that

1) The paragraph can lead the reader to believe that the inspecor(CAWI) must be supervised .
2) You have been personally involved with the wording and active with the committees, I have not.

I concede that you must be correct in what the intent is regardless of the wording and that the wording must have been good enough to convey the idea because that is what the majority of people say that it means to them.

I will continue to read it and I think it will come to me. The comma between the ...perform inspections, under... may mean something that I am not comprehending. I apologize for leading any astray and I appreciate the opinions of everyone.

Thanks

Gerald Austin

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 08-08-2008 03:11

Pipewelder_1999

On thing is clear, the Subcommittee could always make any issue clearer after the publication of any document. HGtx and you have made a good argument for that on this issue.

I begin to see your points clearly, than I re-read the entire section 4 of the QC-1 document. Then, I remember that the abilities and functions of the AWI are set by the B5.1 Qualification Document. Then I go back to the QC-1 certification document and I find that it clearly says what AWS is certifying you for, and what the limits of that certification are. The two documents complement each other. I then revert to my original defense of the document as written.

Then, I realize that I have an Institutional Bias, and that this MUST have some influence on how I read it. I also know that more voices and more ideas in committee usually make better documents. I may not be able to "see the forest for the trees". However, it is possible that you may have an outsiders bias to the issue and you might not be able to "see the forest for the trees." We in committee often get sucked into wordsmithing modes that try to condense what is said in any given paragraph. Then six months later It gets condensed again. The institutional memory tends to forget why some sentence was left in there originally and the revision leaves out or re-condenses the paragraph once again. After publication, an issue pops up from the outside, and "We know what we meant, Why can't you see that?!?!?! Of course, on the other side of the coin, someone outside often does not like what is written, and raises and issue based on wordsmithing. Now the Committees are often obliged to revisit what they thought was put to bed and settled once and for ever! That is the nature of document and standards production.

I too will re-read this issue several more times before I come to terms with what should be done.

Joe Kane

By 803056

Date 08-08-2008 03:48 Edited 08-08-2008 03:58

This would be an excellent exam question; to make sure every candidate understands that accepting the AWS credential, be it the CAWI, CWI, SCWI, etc. binds the holder to the code of ethics whether the project/employer has a requirement for the AWS credential or not.

The very next question should address the limitations imposed on the job functions a CAWI can perform and what conditions are attached.

I've been involved as an instructor for the CWI seminars and I know this subject is discussed. Maybe it needs to be discussed in a little more detail to make sure everyone understands what is involved when one becomes a CAWI, CWI, or SCWI.

Joe, maybe the restriction could be written to be more ironclad. Something like; "The CAWI can only work as an assistant to either a CWI or SCWI that is present, in the same room, and within auditory range of the CAWI."

The code of ethics can be written to clarify the point that the CAWI, CWI, or SCWI are bound to abide by the rules of conduct and code of ethics if they accept the AWS credential whether QC1 is a contractual or project requirement or not.

Maybe an article in Inspection Trends would be helpful.

You made some good points Gerald.

Best regards - Al

By hogan

Date 08-08-2008 14:47 Edited 08-08-2008 15:53

Joe,

Pipewelder has brought up a good point that has got me thinking. If a CAWI is in violation of the code of ethics for performing the duties listed in B1.5 as requiring a CWI or SCWI, then is a CWI in violation for performing the duties listed for a SCWI. Many of the items listed in B5.1 are regularly performed by many of the CWI's I know as well as myself.As an example the following are listed in B5.1 as SCWI duties:
Procedure Qualification:
(7) develop welding procedures
inspection:
(8) prepare visual inspection requirements
(9) prepare NDE requirements
(10) report investigation results of quality inspection disputes
(11) prepare destructive testing requirements
safety:
(2) develop safety procedures and policies
quality assurance:
(2) develop quality assurance plans
(3) prepare base material control requirements
(4) prepare weld consumable control requirements
(5) prepare audit and surveillance plans
(6) prepare documentation control requirements
Project Management:
(3) prepare weld inspection bid specifications
(4) prepare purchase specifications
(5) determine vendor capacity and capability
(6) select vendor
Training:
(4) develop and provide a training program for the WI
(5) provide technical leadership for welding inspectors
(6) develop quality assurance training program
(7) verify implementation of quality assurance training
(8) provide guidance and direction to inspectors for maintaining and upgrading their individual qualifications
Evaluation:
(2) evaluate WIs performance
(3) perform inspection results trend analysis

From what I'm reading, I would assume (dangerous to do) that if it applies to the CAWI then it would also apply to the CWI. Is that correct? Thanks for you input.

By ctacker (****)

Date 08-08-2008 15:43

There is nothing that says a CWI must work within visual or audible range of a SCWI when performing tasks that a SCWI Shall be able to perform.
thats my take on it!

By hogan

Date 08-08-2008 15:49

Just wondering, because you replied to my post, if this was indeed a reply?

By ctacker (****)

Date 08-08-2008 16:54

sorry, I started to write a reply, got called away and accidently hit the enter key. Joe said the same thing I was gonna say but in different words!

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 08-08-2008 15:47 Edited 08-08-2008 15:53

Hogan

No! The only restriction is in paragraph 4.4 for the CAWI. There is no stated restriction in the QC-1 for the AWS CWI. (Except for the QC-7 restriction) The Restriction for the CAWI is because most of them failed the test. Those that passed the test but still do not meet the Experience and Education combination requirement still are not qualified. How could AWS reasonably allow a person who failed the test to act substantially the same way as a real CWI? It doesnt even sound reasonable.

4.4 The CAWI shall be able to perform inspections,
under the direct supervision of a SCWI or CWI within
visible and audible range, and as defined for the AWI as
in AWS B5.1, Specification for the Qualification of
Welding Inspectors. It is the SCWI or CWI, however,
who has responsibility for certifying that welded assemblies
conform to workmanship and acceptance criteria.

There is no wording that says the CWI cannot write WPSs and WPQRs. It just says that AWS is only certifying the SCWI to have the ability to do so.

If you were an EIT would you be allowed to pretend you were a registered PE and sign off calculations? Thus AWS says that the CAWI has demonstrated some skills, but is still not qualified.

The reason I said that the CAWI is the only person in the world that cannot inspect a weld without close supervision, is because the AWS does not have control over what everyone else does or other programs allow. We do control the CAWI, so if the CAWI wants to inspect welds, he must have someone supervising. He cannot be a CAWI and claim he is acting as a Level 2 or a "Special Inspector". If he is a CAWI, the restriction applies 24 / 7. If he officially surrenders the CAWI credential, he can do whatever he wants, or whatever his boss wants.

Joe Kane

By hogan

Date 08-08-2008 15:57

Joe,
I see what your saying about 4.4 and can follow that. This is how I have interpted it. So I guess what my next question would be is when is AWS B5.1 table 1 applicable?

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-08-2008 17:07

There is NO wording that says a CAWI cannot test a welder, write a WPS, witness a PQR either, Is there ?

By Mikeqc1 (****)

Date 08-08-2008 17:22

well, not that this comment is worth a hill of beans, but the statement within visual and audible range, could be a long distance with invention of internet video phones, im not saying I would condone this but someday someone may try this.
MDK

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 08-08-2008 17:33

As long as there is a CWI or SCWI supervising, and signing the document or countersigning the documents.
There is no wording that says a CAWI can't be an olympic athlete. There is no AWS prohibition against a CAWI doing paint inspection. There is no AWSprohibition against the CAWI winning the lottery. There is no AWS prohibition against the CAWI performing welding or practicing law.

By johnnyh (***)

Date 08-08-2008 18:12

Well there should be!!

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-09-2008 21:01 Edited 08-10-2008 11:51

[Edit] All of the below refernce to certifying a welder is in ralationship to the above indication that a CWI or SCWI must be present[/edit]

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that indicates a CAWI cannot certify a welder or any of the other related tasks.

Is the exclusion of "cerfify welders" in relationship to a CAWI an indication that it cannot be done? If it is then my previous points related to a CWI performing [Edit]SCWI[/edit] duties comes into play.

I keep thinking "I MUST BE AN IDIOT" because when I read the standard, I see nothing that prohibits anything besides inspection and that has some holes that I must somehow come to grasp with .

But to indicate that the CAWI cannot perform some other duty seems really odd.

Please t ell me exactly WHAT paragraph prohibits the CAWI from certifying a welder? MAybe he cannot perform the inspection on the weld (I'm still working on that in my brain), but there is nothing to prohibit the certifying of a welder. If the fact that those duties are calledd out for the CWI or SCWI, then we need to re visit my current certifications.

Am I the only one that thinks there is something odd? Maybe again I have missed something. There is only indication that a CWI is the person responsible for certifying a welding inspection. There is NOTHING about certifying a welder.

It is my opinion that theree is some extremely conflicting ideas being conveyed on the forum versus what is actually written in the code. I may be the one out of my mind. Who knows!

Respectfully,

Gerald Austin

By wall2112 (*)

Date 08-10-2008 17:33

i don't know much about this argument, but where i work cawi are only allowed to do visual weld inspection with the cwi present. that way you can see they are performing proper inspections and be readily available for questions they may have. as far as giving weld test i think they can do that to, or anything a cwi does how else are you going to learn your job without experiance. but all results should be signed off by the cwi or scwi. the cawi is basically a trainee nothing more. i read on the section for scwi it was for the person in a supervisor or manager spot. most cwi i know work by their self or with a cawi, they are not in charge of other cwi. that is one of the duties of a scwi.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-10-2008 20:31

Individual companies may very well address the issue in various ways. However they way it seems to be interpreted, if the QC manager in a company goes to take the CWI exam and fails (CAWI), he/she is no longer authorized to certify welders unless he/she chooses to NOT be a CAWI.

Again, I find no text in the QC1 standard that indicates this is the case however just because I don't see it, doesn't mean it does not exist.