I agree with Joe's position.

A condition of certification under the auspices of the QC1 program is an agreement to abide by the code of ethics and the terms and conditions set forth by QC1. The terms and conditions of QC1 are invoked when the individual accepts the certification issued by AWS. The conditions of certification are applicable whether or not the client invokes a requirement for inspectors to be certified to QC1.

This holds true for any individual certified under the auspices of QC1, the SCWI, CWI, and CAWI alike. The terms and conditions are applicable at all times, not only when they are convenient. It is like the "Boy Scout Oath,” it applies all the time, not just when the uniform is being worn.

AWS B5.2 is a standard that delineates a method for qualifying and certifying visual welding inspectors for in-house certification programs, much like the ASNT's Recommended Practice SNT-TC-1A. There is no code of ethics to abide by and it allows the employer ample latitude to develop a program to suit their needs.

QC1 is not for everyone. If the certified individual cannot abide by the COE for one reason or another, the certification is best surrendered. For example; it is best to surrender the certification if the individual decides to take a part time job as a get-away-driver for a crew planning a bank job, because of the clause in QC1 that states the certified individual will not take part in fraudulent or unlawful activities. Even though the job does not require certification to QC1, taking part in such activities will be seen as a violation of the COE. It goes without saying those activities reflects badly on all QC1 certification holders.

"We are SCWIs, CWIs, and CAWIs, but we only act like them when it is required by contract." is not going to be well received by the QC1 committee. QC1 inspectors no, scoundrels yes would most likely be the conclusion drawn by many members of the QC1 committee.

I am a lawyer by day and a pimp after hours is not going to be well received by the "Bar" because the lawyer took an oath to be an officer of the court and is expected to act as one at all times. Wait a minute; my argument is going terribly wrong. Bad example, bad example. Let me start again.

Best regards - Al

Joe, 

I'd like to ask a question that I hope is not taken as either a poor attempt to keep this going, nor interpreted as a justification of someone's poor choice of actions.  I don't have this type of service, but maybe by asking it this way it will clear this up for me in case I ever do and for others who are following this.

So:  (strictly speculative and based also upon the OP's question)

If a part of my business is testing and qualifying welders for employers in my area to whatever code, but lets say D1.1 for the sake of argument (poor choice of words), so that they can do their projects per their customers requirements in Contract Documents and that customer calls asking me to come to his shop as he does not have time to witness his employee taking a test and wants all parties to be held accountable as to who welded which plate, the position it was welded in and the process that was used etc (all of which should be permissible for the employer or his representative to witness even if he sends me the plates to cut and bend and document as to acceptablility of the test).  I decide to send a 'helper' who represents me, and just happens to have a CAWI because he failed the exam, to witness the welders taking the tests and documenting their ID and bringing the coupons back to me for testing.  I prep them, cut them and bend them.  I fill out all paperwork and send it back to the customer/employer saying the coupons were ACCEPTABLE.  My employee did no 'Inspecting'.  He witnessed the tests which does not have to be done by a CWI.

Now, if I understand your position correctly,  this would be a wrong, fraudulent, improper, usage of my helper/employee simply because he has a CAWI and is not to be working without my supervision.  Is that the correct understanding of what you said?  To me, and I'll probably get myself in trouble as js did with you Joe as to how I word this, it is not a question of disagreeing with the code and especially in a public forum, but what can I use my employees for just because they happen to hold a CAWI?  Can my employees not do ANYTHING without me being right there if they have a CAWI?  I felt the emphasis was on inspections done to a particular code on a job that defined usage of that code.  I'm not challenging or questioning, just trying to clarify, and that possibly needs to be done with a formal question to be answered through channels.

I just want to be clear for my own understanding.  Because I had thought about that kind of scenario and had not seen it as a violation.  But, since I was not yet in a position to do such a thing I had not really checked it out in detail.  And no one here, not the OP, js, nor you had presented a detailed application of the question from this perspective.

If the above would be a definite violation, then it would most definitely be in everyone's best interest not to even have a CAWI part of the program because it causes more problems to all parties concerned with the enforcement and obeying of the application details of the position.

I believe there are more than a few people confused or not sure of the application of this based upon some of the other previous posts in this thread.  But do we need to get a formal clarification by sending it to the 'Technical Committee' so it is actually published in official format?  Not questioning you and your knowledge of this issue Joe, but maybe this is not something that we should even try to clarify on the forum but need to use the 'Official' channels to expand upon the position.  If so, I'm sure there are several here more versed in using this procedure than myself to get it taken care of.

Thank you for your time, I hope you will take time to read and comment on my question.

Have a Great Day,  Brent

Joe,
Please have the members of your committee read this thread!
We are the ones that deal with this useless (CAWI) certification and must deal with the confusion.
I hold several other certification and none of them have a junior grade. You either is or you aint.
AWS should get rid of the aint and just go with the is.
Hopefully speaking in this manner does not qualify me for a ethics violation.

Joseph P. Kane
Original Poster (O.P.) wrote
"A  CAWI witnessed a welder qualification test and a CWI signed the welder qualification record. The cwi did not witness the test, he was not at the shop that day. Is this the proper way to do this?"

I answered "  Too many unknowns to give a definitive answer.
If it was to AWS D1.1 then any designated representative of the employer could be enough."

You say that a CAWI no matter what is being unethical if they are inspecting welds with out a SCWI or a CWI within sight and sound? "CAWI's Violation-Working alone and unsupervised.  (Not in "...visible and audible range at all times...")"

Ethics is a philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

What about if a person has been doing inspection for a company to AWS D1.1 for years. That person has been reviewed and audited by numerous folks like D.O.T.and has been found through training and experience to qualify to do this inspection according to this Code. Why would it be unethical for the person to continue to do this for their employer after they went to AWS, took a three part test and because they were slow at turning pages and circumstances like not used to taking tests they didn't make a high enough score on the open book but for a CAWI, doesn't matter that they scored in the 80's and 90's on the other two parts?
I guess I will stir the pot with my my ¢¢'s and the QC-1 and B5.1.
The O.P. didn't say the CAWI Certified the results he said he witnessed them.

QC-1
States in the "Statement on the Use of American Welding Society Standards"
"In issuing and making this standard available, AWS is neither undertaking to render professional or other services for or
on behalf of any person or entity, nor is AWS undertaking to perform duty owed by any person or entity to someone
else. Employers and other persons utilizing the services individuals certified by AWS are responsible for determining
the qualifications, competence, and ability of those individuals.
This standard may be superseded by the issuance of new editions. Users should ensure that they have the latest edition.
Publication of this standard does not authorize infringement of any patent or trade name. Users of this standard accept
any and all liabilities for infringement of any patent or trade name items. AWS disclaims liability for the infringement of
any patent or product trade name resulting from the use of this standard.
Finally, the American Welding Society does not monitor or enforce compliance with this standard, nor does it have the
power to do so."

Also in the QC-1
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.

Then when we go to AWS B5.1 Specification for the Qualification of
Welding Inspectors                              
4. Functions
4.1 Duties. The employer shall define the welding inspector’s
specific duties.
4.1.1 AWI. The AWI shall be able to perform inspections,
under the active supervision of a SWI or WI. Supervision
should be within visible and audible range. The
SWI or WI, shall maintain the responsibility for determining
if welded assemblies conform to workmanship
and acceptance criteria
Notice in B5.1 the Specification uses the word Should not Shall for the proximity effect.

It is like you are comparing apples to oranges.

OP didn't give enough information especially for someone to cry ethics violation.

You are saying that a CAWI can not do what they have been trained to do because the didn't score high enough on a part of the test.
What is unethical about doing tasks assigned that you have been qualified for.
Publicly they may not be Certified to do certain things but for their employer I believe they are.

In the QC-1
11. Code of Ethics, Rules of Conduct,
and Practice
Preamble. In order to safeguard the health and well
being of the public and to maintain integrity and high
standards of skills, practice, and conduct in the occupation
of welding inspection, the American Welding Society
SCWIs, CWIs, and CAWIs shall be cognizant of the
following principles and the scope to which they apply,
with the understanding that any unauthorized practice is
subject to the Committee’s review and may result in suspension,
reprimand, or revocation of certification.
11.1 Integrity. The SCWI, CWI, and CAWI shall act
with complete integrity in professional matters and be
forthright and candid to their employer, the regulator or
employer’s customer, and with the Committee or its representatives,
on matters pertaining to this standard.
11.2 Responsibility to the Public. The SCWI, CWI, and
CAWI shall act to preserve the health and well being of
the public by performing duties required of welding
inspection in a conscientious and impartial manner to the
full extent of the inspector(s) moral and civic responsibility
and qualification. Accordingly, the SCWI, CWI,
and CAWI shall:
11.2.1 Undertake and perform assignments only when
qualified by training, experience, and capability.

Looking at 11.2.1 it doesn't say undertake and perform assignments only when qualified through Certification, it says by training, experience, and capability.
Again it is just my ¢¢'s.
Marshall

I had a CAWI on a couple of my jobs, DSA work (California schools)...  Used him to hang angel wings, pull deck, and smoked all of his cigarettes.

Joe,
Your imposition of the Code of Ethics is arbitrary. You haven't substantiated it. You simply disagreed with my position. And though I respect that and maintain the greatest respect for you it is my contention that that is the difficulty of your argument. Once the COE is imposed then it is easy to continue your argument but there is no evidence, no language, no codification, that the imposition of it is justified, or required.
The OP did not mention that the CWI utilized his CWI stamp in which case I might be pursuaded in some sense that there is a problem. I can possibly support the contention that once he utilizes the stamp that therefore the Code of Ethics can be imposed since at this point he is representing the official certification. By that act it is no longer arbitrary, IMO. But this was not stated by the OP(and even if it were the argument would still stand for those instances in which it wasn't the case). If the CWI did not represent himself as a CWI, and just happens to be a CWI, and was acting entirely within compliance of the contract, and the company manual and program wherein is the ethics violation?
This to me would not by unlike an ASME ANI/AI inspecting Boiler Code work and imposing nuclear requirements upon himself and his clients program simply because he carried the ANI certification as well. The imposition would be entirely arbitrary because if Section III were not imposed then it would not apply.

Having said this, I have no disagreement with you on the problem of fraudulent SNT-TC -1A programs though I have difficulty understanding why there would be such since TC-1A explicitly says it is voluntary, and therefore by saying you comply with it you haven't really said anything. There is difference between complying with TC-1A and imposing all of its requirements as mandatory, similar to CP-189. Which we do.

As for having CWI's even though we don't utilize the certification often it has several and important advantages. The knowledge gained by our employees for having participated in the program, the prestige and pride that comes with the accomplishment, and the marketing of our system to customers.

Joe,
Get with Ross and see if a poll could be produced on the forum and see what the members of the forum think about continuing or eliminating the CAWI. I think it would be interesting to see what the forum members vs. the AWS committee members think of this level of certification.
Also if the members are still wanting to continue, eliminate the wording direct supervision and just make it supervision. I believe the intent was to have a certification level where one could learn and progress into a full CWI. After all a CWI does not have to work under the direct supervision of a SCWI. But human nature being what it is, a company has a CAWi and all they see is CWI.
I for one am in full support of eliminating the CAWI. None of the API certifications allow for jr designation and I look at the CWI as being on the same level as a API cert vs a ASNT level certification.