Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / Welder Quals
- - By Distilled (**) Date 06-13-2014 18:28
Good day all.

I'm looking at the ATF welder qualification template and trying to understand the need for some of the information they collect.  I typically work to the D1.1 code so it's possible that some of these items are not applicable to D1.1 but rather another AWS code, but I just want to be sure that I'm not over looking something.

I'm not seeing where the welding "type" (manual, mechanized, semi-auto, auto) is defined or explained as it relates to welder quals.  Are there limitations to the qualification range based on the type of welding that was performed?  Not the process, I understand it, but the type.  If I perform a welder qualification "manually" or "semi-auto" am I qualified for robotic welding (automatic) in otherwise the same process and parameters?  I can't seem to find this outlined in the D1.1 code; maybe I'm looking over it.

Shielding gas use both torch and root, deposited weld metal thickness, consumable insert; where do these apply in welder qualifications or are they just recorded for informational purposes?

Thanks in advance - I'm a little rusty on some of this stuff, I've worked in a very specific environment for a number of years and l'm trying to regain some of my code knowledge.

Regards.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 06-13-2014 22:18
BJ,  (Oregon?  what part?  moved to AZ from the foothills of Mt Hood 18 years ago.  Parents still have the family farm between Oregon City and Estacada.)

Take a look at 4.19.  You have production welders, welding operators, and tack welders. 

In your various processes it will depend upon the type utilized in the process as to how they are qualified and then what they can do in production.  For example:  FCAW with a manually operated gun is semi-automatic, but on a machine that the operator makes minimal adjustments to and is mainly only observing it is Automatic.  And one is not qualified for the other.  SMAW will of course be manual. 

Some items will vary according to code, wps, process, and other variables.  The forms are generally broad to cover several applications.  From there one needs to get into Clause 4 (D1.1) and understand the Essential Variables for Welder Performance Qualification. 

No line should be left empty.  If it doesn't apply, use 'N/A'. 

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By Distilled (**) Date 06-14-2014 02:20
Hey there Brent.

I'm located in Salem, OR I migrated over from Dallas, OR roughly 18 years ago.

I'm familiar with the meaning of the different types and the difference in manual, auto, etc., I should've been more clear in my original email I apologize. 

What I haven't found is where D1.1 says that you are only qualified for the "type" of welding in which you were tested, if that were the case you'd think it would be part of the essential variables stating that a change in "type" within any "process" requires requalification.  Same for the root and torch gas....why document the type and flow on a welder qualification if it isn't pertinent to the limitations of the qualification or it's qualification range? 

To some degree I can answer this question for myself.... I just got done doing some welder quals at a local school and was preaching that the WPS should be an integral part of the qualification process and that the student should receive a WPS and a coupon and should then be monitored for compliance to the WPS to test not only the physical welding performance, but also the literacy of the student and their ability to interpret a WPS.  That all said I'm not sure I understand the purpose of documenting this information on the WPQR itself, but rather making it a part of the witnesses notes and as part of the initial visual inspection and pre-processing inspection.  If one wanted to be a stickler they could fail the coupon based on a non-compliance to the WPS and force a retest.

I'm certainly a data guy, I'll record anything, but to keep the welder qualification records clean and easy to understand I would think that you'd be better off recording the essential variables and identifying the qualification range for each, so that a welder can easily determine his or her limitations.

I feel a little embarrassed, I've been a CWI for 13 years and I'm asking these questions!?!  :)  Haha..  I guess over the years my opinions have varied and until now as I actually get back in to practice working with various companies I've just been stuck in a rut.  You'll probably see some more of me on here as I get back in the groove and bring myself back up to speed; I appreciate you replying.

BJ
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 06-14-2014 05:18
BJ,

Used to know people in Dallas, visited there a couple of times.  Beautiful logging, hunting country.  Not as far of a move as mine to AZ  :lol:

Anyway, in the codes sometimes we try to make too much of certain items and tend to look for the code to get very specific.  Sometimes the answer is simpler than we tend to think at first glance.

First, Sentence structure is critical in all communication.  The separation of the three welding qualifications by commas is our first indication we have divisions beyond a single test that qualifies all in actual application. 

Second, the code defines itself when we go to Annex 'K' Terms and Definitions.  There we get the clear distinction between the two classes as applicable to this code.  Welders: semi and manual; Welding Operators: Mech, Auto, robotic.

Third, while the code refers you to the same Table for general guidelines in what is required in testing, it also takes you to two distinctly different tests depending upon application to which test to prepare the coupons, see Clause 4.20.1.2 and then the various Figures.

Now, I understand your query.  It is not nearly as clear as it could be and probably not as clear as it should be.  Thus it would be nice if there were a brief distinction made in the text of the code. 

I also looked for it in application to the combination of process and type.  Not in definitions, not in code text, or anywhere else I could think of. 

While you need a WPS to test to, you are not restricted to welding in production to only that WPS.  In fact, it is not necessarily a production WPS that is used.  Only one set up to test the welder at parameters that the Contractor is wanting to make sure you can perform at. 

I hope my rambling helped.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By Distilled (**) Date 06-14-2014 19:37
That was an excellent reply Brent - thank you.
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 06-16-2014 23:11 Edited 06-16-2014 23:48
I have one more item of interest (at least it interested me :lol: ) for you.  Check this out:

http://www.aws.org/technical/interps/d1-84-013.pdf 

Official Interpretation of Welder/Welding Operator Qualification.  Note the year of the code reference though as well as the footnote at the bottom concerning new (1985) code.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - By Distilled (**) Date 06-24-2014 15:58
Thanks again!
- - By Distilled (**) Date 09-12-2014 07:20
I'm working with a local trade school and provide welder qualification testing sessions for their students.  The school has recently decided to offer a certification for CJP tubular butt joints without backing and a question came to my mind.  As a school they are not providing production welding or welding components to be used in service.  Due to the lack of backing the WPS to be used during qualification would require that a PQR be completed, but I'm struggling to justify the associated costs for this due to the procedure not being used in production welding.  I've perused the code and applicable specifications looking for an exception that I could apply to avoid these costs for them, but I don't really see what I'm looking for other than the use of the term "production welding", which doesn't apply to this situation.

As their 3rd party CWI I wrote a welder qualification procedure that is strictly by the book so that students would be fully aware of the expectations involved and the processes that must be followed during the testing sessions or in the event that a re-test is required.  I'm considering writing in a process of internal WPS qualification, strictly for use at the school, that would outline an alternate process of developing otherwise non-prequalified welding procedures.  I was thinking that if we developed a welding procedures for the above mentioned CJP butt joint, then had the instructors complete a series of coupons that were cut and bent for evaluation, if those coupons were bent successfully the procedure would be considered acceptable for use for welder qualifications as it would prove that the WPS and associated qualification test was "passable" and that the students were not set up for failure due to a poorly developed WPS. 

My thought process here is that we're not as concerned with the welding procedure's ability to produce welds of acceptable strength and mechanical properties for welded components used in service and as designed and analyzed by the engineer, we're concerned with the welder's ability to perform the test and obtain acceptable results during the evaluation process and in the welding process of which he or she used.  If the instructors can produce 6, 8 or a dozen coupons with a high level of success (100% perhaps) and acceptable bend tests result then the students should then be able to do the same if they indeed have the skills. 

The school's primary purpose for providing welder qualifications to their students is to get their employment applications to the top of the stack.  It has been my experience that employers re-qualify welders upon hiring them even if they are experienced and hold current certifications, but giving the student the opportunity to show a potential employer that they have passed welder quals previously, and hopefully in the processes used by the employer, their chances of being hired or at least interviewed are greatly increased.  Personally I have not seen an employer request the WPS and when applicable the associated PQR used during the welder qual as it most likely doesn't directly apply to their production welding, so for an otherwise standard application - mild steel A53 Gr.B pipe with a 6011 root and 7018 fill passes - is it really necessary to go through a formal procedure qualification for a student's welder qualification test?

If this were an exotic qualification or a situation where we were going to venture outside of manufacturer recommended parameters and that may result in significant impacts to mechanical properties that might aid, or be detrimental to, the welder passing his qualification I would feel differently, but this isn't the case we're simply omitting backing and testing the welders ability to deal with the open root.

It is a grey area for me, so I'd appreciate any feedback and input that any of you may have and thank you in advance. 

Regards,
BJ
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 09-12-2014 12:15
Three thoughts come up quickly as I have been in the same position you are in.

First, You can put a watermark on your Welder Qualification Test Reports that state.  "For Education Purposes, not for production"  This will provide a report for employers that is dated, and has the process, position and procedures used as well as the inspection criteria and results.  This can be used with any report.

Second, You could GET An AWS S.E.N.SE school membership that extends to both Entry and Advanced levels.   SENSE provides some WPS's.. Not sure if those would meet your local need.  But the WPS's provided are sound and the cost is very reasonable for what you get.

Third.  Purchase an AWS  SWPS   These are usually pretty wide ranging in scope and there are several pipe/tube alternatives for steel, stainless and aluminum in SMAW, GTAW, GMAW, FCAW.   These ran about $250 I think, a few years ago.

I preferred to put watermarks on everything that left the college for a couple of reasons.
1. Schools are subsidized and this makes an unfair market against 3rd party inspectors who certify production welders to feed their families.
2. My CWI stamp is mine, not the schools.  If an employer is going to profit by a welder qualified by my stamp, I feel justified in expecting to be paid too.
3. As a college instructor, I've always been stingy about producing test reports for green beginners..  Many just won't be able to reproduce consistently what they did in class a few months before.. So only the people I judge to be sufficient for a while will see paper.   I produced fewer and fewer reports as time went on, at the end only in special cases.

Also,  If this pipe test is targeted at a specific employer, why not allow them to provide the qualified procedures or let them pay to have tensiles done for the school... If you are filling their roster, its the least they can do.

Here is an attachment that shows what I mean by a watermarked Test Report for a non-prequalified exam backed by an AWS SENSE WPS.
Attachment: DemoGMAWshortcircuit.pdf (131k)
Parent - - By Distilled (**) Date 09-18-2014 04:41
Hi Lawrence,

Thank you too for your response!

You know you mentioned the watermark on the WQTR - it could just as well go on the WPS, but then as Al mentioned it's not an AWS qualification. 

I'll check on the S.E.N.S.E. membership, they have a membership, but I'm not sure they went that route.  Thanks!

I am familiar with the WPSs provided by AWS and I don't think that your figure of $250 ea. is too far off, that would definitely be a more cost effective way of doing this in lieu of qualifying a procedure from scratch.

In my scenario I come in as 3rd party, hired by the school, I don't represent the school or provide a certification 'of the school'.  The students pay for one or more certifications as part of their training package, during the 12 week session the instructors work with the students on their desired process(es) and positions and include classroom training in print reading, welding technology, weld symbols, etc.  Then at the end of the session, or near it, I come in and perform the formal performance qualification tests.  In the event of a failure we follow AWS' protocol and typically require additional training, however on a few specific occasions we've allowed the alternative retest where two coupons are completed for evaluation.

This pipe test isn't targeted at any particular employer the school simply wants to offer a variety of options to their students in order to maximize their potential for employment and of course they want to attract students.

Gotta run - cheers.

BJ
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 09-18-2014 06:20
$248 for non-members, $186 for members.

BB
Parent - By Distilled (**) Date 09-18-2014 00:18
Thank you all for the replies.  I've been down for a few days; yes thank you kind children who brought home with them a; "Back-To-School Bug"  :) 

......I'll get caught up on the thread ASAP. 

Cheers,

BJ
Parent - By Plasma56 (**) Date 09-19-2014 10:28
BJ, Gentleman.

What Bj is suggesting is similar to the model for Welder qualification and certification training in Alberta. Ours aligned to ASME Boiler codes in testing.
Trade Secrets.org
Interesting stuff this discussion.

It's just a different way of achieveing similar results. And at the end of the day, we just need to know he can deposit sound weld metal, and follow the instructions how to do it. Over and over again.
But one day, there will be alignment amongst the tribes who rule. Or they will develope stronger glue and we'll all be out of jobs.

Untill tomorrow, follow the money trail. For what it's worth, I think we lowering the bar in training as a result of the switch to a task specific training model. But it's cheaper. Brings about lower labor cost, and supplies the manufacturing sector with employable wire feed operators.

Education sadly is what gets lost, and costs you more later to obtain.

And to leave on a note...getting a good one is a license to print money.
Thats it. I said too much already.
- - By 803056 (*****) Date 09-12-2014 13:14 Edited 09-12-2014 16:50
Any welder performance test report is going to be used by many employers as evidence the welder has the skills required to perform production work. To believe anything less is playing the part of the long necked bird that hides its head in the sand.

If there is any desire to state the individual is qualified per AWS, ASME or any other welding standard, the person must meet all the requirements of the applicable code. In this case, if the school wants to test the welders using an assembly without the use of backing, they must qualify the WPS or purchase a SWPS that does not employ backing. If they want the welders to qualify for T, K, and Y connections, there is no SWPS and they have to qualify the WPS if they want to say the qualification meets AWS D1.1.

Whether it is for training, education, or production, all the requirements of the code must be met if the test record is going to include a statement that says the welder is qualified to a particular code.

My opening statement is based on the fact that most employers do not understand the process of welder performance qualification. The truth of the matter is many CWIs do not understand all the ins and outs of welder performance qualification. It they did, there would not (thanks Henry) be as many questions pertaining to the subject. Disclaimers or not, employers are going to use the test record even when the information present by the record is incorrect.

As for the AWS issued performance test records, I do not accept them. They do not provide the information required to assess whether the welder is qualified or not. Currently the test record lists the WPS the welder used, but it doesn't state whether backing was used or not used. That is an essential piece of information.

I do not accept any test record that does not include the current employer's signature. It is the current employer that has to certify the welder. Whether previous qualification by a school, ATF, or independent lab is acceptable is the Engineer's decision. If the current employer is embarrassed to affix their signature to the test record, why should the Engineer accept it? If there are errors, it means the individual performing and witnessing the test wasn't fully cognizant with the requirements. That being the case, how does the Engineer know any of the information is correct or accurate?

A few years ago I ran into a manufacturer that was given a blank test report with the CWI's stamp and signature at the bottom of the report. It was only a matter of hours for every welder in the shop to become "certified" without a single arc being struck. I checked the welder performance test coupons from an ATF. They were bent to the wrong radius and they were not bent all the way around as required. The welder performance tests I recognize are the one's I witness.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-12-2014 16:10 Edited 09-12-2014 16:12
Hey Al,

When you wrote this: "It they did, there would be as many questions pertaining to the subject." Did you really mean to write:
" If they did, there wouldn't be as many questions pertaining to the subject." Am I correct?:surprised::roll::eek:

Small typo from FAT FINGERITIS... No biggie.:lol::wink:
Anywho other than that, I don't think anyone could have explained what you did as well and as comprehensive as you did Al.:grin::lol::wink::cool: Have a good weekend my friend.

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 09-12-2014 16:53
Thanks Henry. It is good to have someone watching your back from time to time.

My daughter is married now, so she isn't living at home anymore. There is no one to proof read my stuff. Are you interested?

Fat stubby fingers, stubborn computer, you name it.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-13-2014 00:27
I can translate to Spanish also if necessary...Sure Al... I wouldn't mind a challenge... Although there's nothing I or anyone else can do for our FAT FINGERITIS....
I think it's degenerative... For one of my very old pc's I have a smaller crescent wrench to get it out of it's slumber... But once it gets going, it's perfect PC to check out antivirus programs and to see if I like any trial ware and helps me make the decision whether or not to pursue the application further... It's sort of like a small lab to test out software so it's dedicated to do this exclusively and is isolated from synching with my 2 thoroughbred desktop PC's... So my need for speed is always fulfilled... I also have 2 laptops but one of them is a dinosaur also and just sits in it's bag in my coat closet out of site and almost out of mind... The second one is a freakin Monster! I mean it literally has to be reigned in because of it's speed...

Here's a Geek tip... If anyone's computer takes forever to boot up regardless if you religiously perform the necessary maintenance... There's an alternative to going out and spending your money on a Ferarri type  PC whether it's a desktop or a laptop... Solid State hard drives are the answer to your computer's sluggishness when booting up to use afterwards... These are relatively newer hard drives than can hold120, 250 and 500 Gigabytes of data and here's the kicker... The speed increase in your boot up and operation times for searches, using software applications, and any other function on your computer that requires speed and efficiency is roughly 50 times faster than the standard mechanical hard drives... With some standard hard drives having multiple disks inside along with other mechanical/moving parts that eventually fail...

Now this is the clincher... The price for these solid state hard drives are now less than $100.00 which is significantly less expensive  than what they used to go for just two years ago... It's a win - win for anyone that doesn't want to spend money on a new horse so to speak... when you can give it a piggyback brain transplant instead... Meaning that you can still keep your older mechanical drive exclusively for storage of important data and music/entertainment files and folders and use the newer Ferarri solid state drive to run your operating system and any of your applications that require more speed than what "old Yeller" can give you currently... So that's my Geek tip for today.:grin::lol::wink::cool:

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By Distilled (**) Date 09-18-2014 03:39
Al, thank you for the reply. 

Generally I agree with the comments about welder qualifications and the need for a qualified WPS, be it pre-qualified or qualified by testing.  A literal interpretation of B2.1 or D1.1 certainly establishes this, but what do you think about the concept I present?  I agree that if I were to offer some sort of alternative it would be unwise of me to call it an "AWS Qualification" and I'm okay with that as long as I can explain myself and have it make sense. :)  In all reality I think the school would just a soon qualify the WPS and maintain our by-the-book procedure, but I think it is an interesting topic none the less.

Once a welder is qualified the qualification has nothing to do with the specific WPS, a change of welding procedures does not necessarily constitute a re-qualification of the welder, the WPS is not an essential variable.  I understand that some of the details that the WPS contains are essential variables, but the WPS in and of itself is not.  Now wow an employer sees or uses a welder's qualification record (aka: weld cert) makes no difference to me unless I'm the Inspector of Record on a project, if I spent my days trying to look after the end-user I wouldn't get anything done, because you're absolutely right most Employers....many Engineers....many Building Officials...etc. have no idea how this stuff works and it seems to be getting worse and worse especially on the topic of Special Inspections.  I just deal with these guys as they come and do my best to educate them.  I recently saw a welding procedure stamped and approved by a DOT Engineer that was such a cluster I don't know how anyone could've approved it.  Process: SMAW, using GMAW globular transfer mode with .045 E71T-1 filler, pre-qualified, single-bevel with a 1/8" root face and root opening, no backing..... need I continue?  ...and yes I'm serious...

I agree fully, and expect, that a welder qualification test record should be viewed by an employer as evidence that a welder has the skills necessary to perform production welding.  On the educational side this is exactly our goal, to provide a potential employer a document that states that the individual has the ability to pass a welder qualification test.  This doesn't mean that that person will be able to fit or weld the products in that employer's facility and that they will be able to perform under the specific conditions found in that employer's facility, but it should certainly count for something as the applications/resumes are reviewed. 

Now I think that what you are trying to say is that this is the point of breakdown.  The applicant shows up to an interview with my hypothetical welding cert that was performed using a non-qualified WPS (due to the omission of backing) within a educational facility.  The employer hires the applicant and puts him or her in to production welding the following day.  I'm with you and I know what the code(s) say(s), but if the individual passed the welder qualification using a WPS that was not qualified by testing and is then handed a WPS that is qualified for production and told to go to work......well......tongue in cheek to some degree......SO WHAT!?!  I mean don't get me wrong, I know what the code says, but from the educator's point of view what we are testing here; the welder or the procedure?  The Welder! 

LOL --- I'm sure your fingers are getting itchy to type and to put me in check... please don't misunderstand me I do understand the code requirements, but conceptually and under some limitations it seems reasonable to provide educators some provisions for handling this without making them qualify a variety of procedures and again I'm with you we could do this and call it an XYZ Certification, but it would be nice to get some buy-in and tag this with AWS in some form or fashion and at some point.

I think one could argue all day and night about what specific skills a "qualified production welder" might have, but sticking to the specific topic of weld placement and as a former employer of roughly 75 production welders in an AISC certified shop I never requested the WPS used to qualify incoming applicants that had certifications in hand and I didn't care about the WPS used, I cared that the individual had welded and passed a qualification test and I cared what position and what process was used.  If hired the new employee would be partnered with one of our certified welders for evaluation and training and they would undergo our own in-house qualification process regardless of what they brought me, so it didn't matter, but I'll admit that most mom and pop shops don't operate that way - I got your point.

You say that you do not accept any test record that does not include the current employer's signature.  I haven't heard someone take this stance exactly, I would think that this would depend on the employer's quality manual and/or hiring practices.  Let me ask you this; if in a manufacturer's Quality Manual they state that Welders are considered to be "Qualified" upon the presentation of an passing welder performance qualification record signed by a Certified Welding Inspector and supported by a welder's continuity log, and/or a letter from previous employers stating the welder's continuity, and they provided you with this information would you accept this?

There are certainly a lot of questionable practices in industry I've come across a plenty myself.  Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me that a manufacturer was given a blank performance qualification record.

Hey Al I appreciate your time and the conversation and I look forward to you reading your reply.  Have a good one.

BJ
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 09-18-2014 12:19 Edited 09-18-2014 16:57
Every document that has your signature has the potential to bolster or destroy your credibility as a CWI or as a trustworthy individual. It takes years to build a reputation and seconds to destroy it.

I refuse to sign any document I feel is incorrect or questionable. Rarely does an opportunity arise where I can "explain" what is recorded unless it is a deposition. Then the lawyers have their opportunity to play "wreck the reputation." It errors are discovered, the reliability of the document, the program, the individual's reputation and credibility is pretty much destroyed.

When I sign a welder performance test record or an inspection, it is accurate and correct to the best of my knowledge. I'm not saying it will not contain any error, but it is as factual and correct as I can make it.

You can affix your signature to any document you want. It is your reputation and credibility that is on the line. Just remember, once you have destroyed your credibility, you are the one and only person that did it to yourself. You know the code, you know what's required, if you choose to ignore the requirements, it is you and you alone that has to live with the fall out of people saying, "Oh, those test records signed by XYZ don't mean anything. He  doesn't follow the code when he tests the students." Then when you do test a welder legitimately, the response will be the same because they already know you don't follow the code.

You can always proclaim, "No, these are real performance test records. I followed the code when I tested these welders."

But few will hear or pay attention. Right, sure you did.

I already question your credibility and you are simply asking the question. Funny how that works.

The best thing a customer ever said to me was, "Al, I might not like what you say or what you tell me, but I know it is your honest opinion and I know I can take it to the bank."

I stopped doing work with a lab many years ago when the owner said, "The customer only wants to hear "it passed", they aren't interested in hearing bad news." The lab has since been caught filing concrete reports before the ground was broken, using a PE stamp on their reports long after the engineer had left the company, and several other questionable practices. They are still in business and doing well, I hear they are looking for a CWI. Interested in a position with them?

If you want to help the students, do a thorough job of training them and your reputation as a good instructor and a good institution of learning will get to the employer long before your students apply for a job. When I was an apprentice Ironworker my foreman said, "Your reputation will get to the job site long before you do." He was right, it doesn't take long before people know whether you are trustworthy, a good worker, a good student, a good instructor, a good (fill in the blank) long before they meet you.

In the end, your reputation is about all you have.

Will you ever trust a test record from that company that filled out that erroneous test report you mentioned in your post?

The structural welding codes says the Engineer may accept evidence of previous qualification. I simply tell the client it saves time and money to test the welders before the project begins. It is not cost effective to eliminate the "wanna bees" after they produce unacceptable welds. It ultimately saves time and money by eliminating the questionable welders before the work starts. As I say, "Let them learn how to weld on someone else's project." 

Al
Parent - - By Plasma56 (**) Date 09-19-2014 09:33
Early morning Al,

"If you want to help the students, do a thorough job of training them and your reputation as a good instructor and a good institution of learning will get to the employer long before your students apply for a job"

Before I call it a morning, and without comment to anything else, in my mind, those words are gold in so many ways.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 09-19-2014 12:25
Thanks - Al
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-18-2014 19:16
All I got to say BJ(Distilled) is this: C'mon Man!!! You should know better than that Man!!!

Al is just trying to set you straight because this is serious, legal, business with far reaching consequences if one is found to be reckless in following procedures, and instead doing whatever it takes in the form of taking shortcuts in order to make the process more favorable to the results you seek...

When people get word of something like this, your reputation like Al mentioned becomes questionable... There's no in getting around that! I mean you wrote that you have enough experience to know better, and you do follow the code, etc., etc... BS! Plain and simple and, you ought to know better than that if you really do understand the D1.1 welding code...

I find that exercise akin to texting while driving at 35 miles an hour... One might get away with doing that until one day they get broadsided with a huge truck because they didn't adhere to the rules of the road even if it was only for a split second resulting in becoming a quadriplegic and on life support... Don't put your reputation in that type of situation BJ...

Excellent reply as usual Al! Could you please send me some peaches from Georgia when you're down that way, okay?

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By SCOTTN (***) Date 09-18-2014 20:52
I agree with the texting while driving analogy.  It's not a very smart thing to do.  I saw a lady texting and driving the other day and it really made me mad, so I rolled down my window and threw my beer at her.
Parent - - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-18-2014 23:47
Well I hope it wasn't expensive beer! That would truly be a waste of suds.  In any event, that is one funny story SCOTT!!!:lol::yell::twisted::yell::lol::yell::twisted::yell::lol::wink:

Respectfully,
Henry
Parent - - By SCOTTN (***) Date 09-19-2014 14:52
Thanks Henry.  I am so sick of women drivers and there carefree attitude towards driving.  I see them driving recklessly all the time, either talking or texting on their cell phones, fiddling with their hair, or putting on makeup.  On the way to work this morning, another one pulled right out in front of me.  I hit my brakes so hard that I spilled my beer.  Now before anybody gets the wrong idea about me drinking a few beers on the way to work each morning, first of all, not everybody likes corn flakes for breakfast, ok?  Secondly, beer is actually good for you.  Consider this analogy…  A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo.  When the herd is being hunted, it’s the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first.  This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.  In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells.  As we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But in the same manner that the slower, weaker, buffalo are killed, alcohol also kills the slowest and weakest brain cells first.  In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That explains why we feel smarter after a few beers, and what better place to feel smarter, than at work?  Something else that people don’t realize, is that over the course of a year, the average human walks 900 miles per year and drinks 22 gallons of beer.  This means that the average human gets 41 miles to the gallon.  When you compare that to how many miles the average car gets to the gallon, that’s a pretty impressive statistic.  One scientist even theorized that drinking beer makes men act like women.  To test this theory, 100 men were given two six packs of beer each, and they had to drink all 12 within a one hour period.  After drinking them, it was observed that 100% of the men talked excessively without making any sense whatsoever, they all became overly emotional, they couldn't drive, not one of them could manage to come up with a single rational thought, they all started arguments over absolutely nothing, and then refused to apologize when it was blatantly obvious that they were wrong.  Just the other night my wife screamed at me... “You do nothing in this house.” I pointed out to her that since I was in the living room, I was actually in the house, and as I was sitting on the sofa, I was drinking beer and watching the television.  So contrary to popular belief, I was doing at least three things.  Don’t get me wrong.  I don't mind it when my wife gets mad at me, I just want her to get her facts right.  Last night I was lying on the sofa and I said, “I never want to live in a vegetative state, dependent on some machine and fluids from a bottle.  If that ever happens to me, just pull the plug.” My wife immediately got up out of her chair, like she’d been shot out of a cannon, unplugged the tv, and emptied my bottle of beer down the sink in the kitchen.  Some women have absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever.  Things were so much different when she and I first met.  My problem was that I ignored all the signs.  She used to bring me a beer and hand me a coaster.  I should have known right then that it wasn't going to work out, because she obviously thought that I was actually going to put down my beer.  I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Now she’s always telling me, “You don't make love to me with the same passion as you used to.” “Of course I do," I say. “I just don't want to spill my beer.” I know that she just wants me to be happy, so now I have a 60” tv in the bedroom, a fridge full of beer, and she sleeps on the couch.
Parent - By ssbn727 (*****) Date 09-19-2014 15:08
You're killing me SCOTTY!!!:smile::grin::lol::yell::lol::yell::twisted::yell::lol::twisted::yell::lol::twisted::wink::cool::cool::cool:
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 09-19-2014 16:44
You truly need to change professions.  You could make a fortune as a stand up comic.  The way these just continually roll out is amazing. 

Thanks for my morning laugh Scott. 

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By SCOTTN (***) Date 09-19-2014 18:47
Thanks Brent.  You’re welcome.  I think the real key to being funny is to say smart things stupidly... or is it stupid things smartly? Whatever, it's not rocket surgery.  And I’ve always wanted to be filthy stinking rich.  I’m already filthy and I stink, so the rich part is just around the corner.  Seriously, I have a problem with rich people, especially rich kids.  I think it goes back to when I was a kid.  I remember that I always hated the first day back at school after the summer holidays because all of the rich kids would have suntans and great stories to tell.  All I ever had after the summer holidays was a black eye and a new last name.  Over the years, I’ve still remained optimistic that good fortune will come my way.  One story that has been of great inspiration to me has been the story about a young man who asked an old rich man how he made his money.  The old rich man put his hand in his expensive wool vest and said, “Well, son, it was 1932.  It was the depth of the Great Depression.  I was down to my last nickel.” “I invested that nickel in an apple.  I spent the entire day polishing that apple and, at the end of the day, I sold that apple for ten cents.” “The next morning, I invested those ten cents in two apples. I spent the entire day polishing them and sold them at 5:00 pm for 20 cents.  I continued this system for a month, and by the end of the month I'd accumulated a fortune of $1.37.”  “Then my wife's father died and left us two million dollars.” Even though the old man couldn't count, that story inspired me to just sit back and let it come to me as well.  Then, one night, as fate would have it, and as I sat at the kitchen table surrounded by a huge pile of overdue bills and worrying what to do about it, I got a phone call to say that my rich uncle had died.  My problems were solved because he left me his paper shredder.  Now I just sit back and play the lottery.  If I ever hit the jackpot, there is one thing that I absolutely have to do.  If I'm going to be rich, then my neighbors will be rich too, because I’m going to move to a rich neighborhood.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 09-20-2014 02:45
I always figured I would be rich if only my father had worked harder.

Al
Parent - - By Distilled (**) Date 10-18-2014 20:05
I appreciate all of the comments guys, but you've missed something here.  You are acting like I've been exercising these practices.  Al you seem to be a well respected participant of the forum, but you've turned a hypothetical discussion in to fact and practice and have perhaps jumped to some conclusions about what I do or am doing and that has lead the discussion down the wrong path.

Thinking outside of the box and discussing topics and ideas like this is how codes are developed and how codes evolve in to better documents that serve not only industry, but others as well.

Rest assured that my credibility is fully intact, I'm well respected by Manufacturers, Contractors and Jurisdictional Authorities in my region and abroad and would not be providing consultation services for government agencies in multiple states and involved with infrastructure and structures that support essential governmental services if it wasn't.  I'm an above board and stand-up Inspector and Consultant and I carry a wide variety of certifications and credentials, you don't get those and success in business through malpractice and short-cutting.  I'm also fully aware of the legalities, consequences, etc; I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday fellas.  :)  Over the years I've managed those areas that make one very akin to legalities, areas such as safety, quality, and HR.  I appreciate the gesture, but I don't need a lecture. 

This was a 'what-if' dialogue that I brought here as a brainstorming type topic and it got mis-construed; I should have caught that earlier and said something.

In regards to the level or type of training provided at the school I'm working with that has nothing to do with this conversation.  This is about treating an educational facility as an educational facility and not as a manufacturer or contractor.  It is about allowing the school to save potentially thousands of dollars in procedure qualifications ultimately reducing the cost of tuition and getting more students in the classroom and eventually in to the industry and producing products that then provide you and I jobs.

It's been fun, this particular discussion didn't quite go as I had hoped, but thanks for the participation everyone. Until next time...

BJ
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 10-21-2014 02:20
Some on my comments are purely sarcasm with the intent you give you pause.

There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from devising your own performance qualification test. The secret is not to include a certifying statement stating the performance test was conducted in accordance with code XYZ.

I use a specific test that I devised on my current project. The equipment repair I am doing is not to a particular code. I use AWS D1.1 as a guideline for determining preheat, matching filler metal, etc. However, the performance test is one that I have been using for a while for these types projects. This particular test has been discussed here in the Forum and it has been the subject of recent article in Inspection Trends. The performance test report does not say the welders are qualified in accordance with AWS, ASME, or BZQ. It simply states that the welders have passed a performance qualification test and they are qualified to weld on Project XQB.  My client receives a roster listing the names of the welders that passed the qualification test. There is no performance test report other than the one I keep in my system. The welder is not provided with a copy of the test report to ensure it cannot presented to anyone as evidence of qualification to a code. The certification is valid for the non-code repair we are working on and nothing else. The test is a means of weeding out the welder “wanna bees.”

There is nothing saying you can’t do the same for the students. The danger is including a reference to a particular code in the certifying statement. Either the testing is done to a code or it isn’t. If you are not going to follow the code, don’t reference the code in the certifying statement. The closing statement on the performance test report can say the student passed a performance test that demonstrates their ability to deposit a sound weld.

I will stand behind my earlier comment that it is my (or your) reputation on the dotted line every time my signature or my SCWI stamp is placed on the piece of paper. I always ask myself whether signing that paper will become a liability.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By 46.00 (****) Date 10-21-2014 05:04
Al, what are your thoughts on a proviso such as 'Tests done in accordance and up to AWS D1.1 2010' standards  but not acceptance of such standard? Stamped or acknowledged by a  CWI or ASNT Inspector?
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 10-21-2014 09:00
ASNT Inspector:lol: it could be a bogus one.:twisted:
Parent - - By welderbrent (*****) Date 10-21-2014 16:20
Joey,

Just curious of this: "it could be a bogus one."  On what merits please? 

ASNT level II VT is available by reciprocity when one has AWS/CWI which then I would think Glyn would have said 'and' or 'and/or' not 'or'.  Also, could have added 'ICC Special Inspector' which is available in Bolting and Welding. 

But, ASNT level II VT is also a stand alone cert available by testing through ASNT or, just like MT, UT, PT, etc, through a company QC policy that establishes training, testing, and 'certification'. 

There are many applications which prefer level II VT over AWS/CWI because of the training and application.  It does a great job of training on use of lighting while inspecting and going into items for castings, forgings, and metallurgy that AWS falls short on. 

So, I'm just curious if there is more of a chance of bogus ASNT certs than there is AWS certs?  UUMM, or is it because they don't have stamps?

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By Joey (***) Date 10-22-2014 00:18
Brent

I'm familiar with ASNT Technician, but ASNT Inspector sounds confusing:roll:

Joey
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 10-22-2014 02:27
I guess I can understand that but what else would you call an ASNT Level II VT 'Inspector'?  He's not really a 'technician'. 

My card says I'm certified to the VT technique and calls me the 'certificate holder'.  UUMM.  I think I like 'Inspector' better.

Just my thoughts and two tin pennies worth.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - By Joey (***) Date 10-21-2014 09:13
46.00

Being a consultant, what must be your basis to say that the test carried out is in order?
Can CWI stamped overrule the project specification?
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 10-21-2014 22:54 Edited 10-22-2014 22:21
I am not sure I understand what you mean.

If that were the statement included with the declaration of certification, I would reject it because I do not know what it means.

The performance test record is a legal document. It has to be written in a manner that provides a clear statement of what is being certified and to what standard, if one applies. If the certifying statement is ambiguous, unclear, incorrect, grammatically incorrect, etc., it could be a liability in the event of litigation. 

Best regards - Al
Up Topic American Welding Society Services / Certifications / Welder Quals

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill