Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / AWS D17.1 Welder Qualification
- - By Maggs47 (**) Date 02-14-2017 23:57
The company I work at does both manual and orbtial GTAW welding per AWS D17.1.  I am told that a welder who has passed their qualification for manual weld in a particular material group is also qualified for orbital welding in the same group.  I can't find anywhere in the specification that indicates this.  Can anyone help me out with advice and/or paragraph reference?
Parent - - By Maggs47 (**) Date 02-15-2017 18:18
Does no one on this forum work with D17.1?  This is not the first time I've asked a question about that spec and haven't gotten any response.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-16-2017 05:27
I'm on the road and do not have access to the standard.

It is silly to answer without the standard in front of me so I can review the requirements.

Generally, qualification for a manual process does not qualify one for mechanized or automatic or vice versa. Having placed my butt on the line, the standard needs to be checked. Different standards, different requirements.

Parent - By Maggs47 (**) Date 02-16-2017 16:07
Thank you for your response, Al.  I appreciate the feedback.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 02-16-2017 12:37
And for biting the hand that feeds you (for free)

I remain silent.
Parent - - By Maggs47 (**) Date 02-16-2017 16:06 Edited 02-16-2017 16:10
Thanks for being small and petty, Lawrence.  I see why this forum got its reputation.

Just so you know, my secondary post was sincere.  I never see anyone else talking about D17.1 on here.
Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 02-16-2017 19:47
Ok,  you are probably right..

I apologize for being rude.

I'm out of town like Al,  

When I get back to my desk and hard copy I'll review your question and see if the code is silent or has something to say.

I'm prolly the guy that spends the most time answering D17 questions around here.   Have you tried the search function?   It's possible your question has come up before.
Parent - By Maggs47 (**) Date 02-16-2017 19:59

No harm, no foul.

I've tried searching, haven't found anything yet.  Thank you for offering to look it up when you get a chance.
Parent - By bmarsh41 Date 03-01-2017 17:33
where I work, we are required to qualify the orbital weld machine, not the operator to the machine.
Parent - - By pipewelder_1999 (****) Date 02-16-2017 20:18
I am not a fan of 17.1 as far as how a code is written.

I have looked through it and there is NOT an general statement as in other codes stating what you have mentioned.

So therefore, you must look at the variables for qualification of the operators. refers you to only the 1st 3 variables above. No reference is made to any variable that is "operator specific" such as manual controls of joint tracking, speed, etc....

The AWS 3.0 definitions are referred to for operator and welder but have no purpose as far as defining qualification requirements.

So ask yourself what variables must apply to operator qualification? Not very many!

Then on the other side of things, look at the variables required for a welder. Nothing there that distinguishes a welder from an operator either. A person could follow all of the requirements for a welder on a mchine weld, does that make them qualified as a welder???

The only distiguishing thing left is the definitions. I'm safe testing each type on each type.

Sorry I wasn't much help. I do not see anything that allows an operator to be qualified by virtue of manual or semi-auto welding. If it does, then the opposite works too based upon my logic.

I only glanced through my .pdf version of the code using the search term "Operator" and "Machine" independently an nothing jumped out at me. I did not re-read the code from cover to cover.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-18-2017 15:22
D17.1 includes a term identifying the "Engineering Authority", It often causes confusion because few people understand who the Engineering Authority is. For most work the Engineering Authority is the customer. Generally each lower tier vender has a customer (Engineering Authority) that is responsible to answer questions regarding the requirements and questions about the construct. The customer would direct the question up to the next higher tier until the questions reaches the "real" Engineering Authority. While the terminology may be different, it isn't really that different than most standards. However, because D17.1 doesn't define everything to the extent that AWS D1.1 might, there is more latitude given to the Engineering Authority. This approach is very similar to many military standards where the authority is the shipyard or government agency such as SupShips or NAVSEA.

When in doubt, ask the Engineering Authority.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By Maggs47 (**) Date 02-20-2017 20:56
In this case, I would love to kick things up to the "Engineering Authority," but we do work for several of the primes so I can't automatically use, for example, Boeing's interpretation on a Lockheed part.

I agree that D17.1 doesn't clearly define everything relevant.  It also doesn't really give direction in cases where they have obviously left things out.
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 02-20-2017 21:01
You have to go back to the customer that you are working with. They in turn would go their customer, until it does go back to Boeing or Lockheed. It follows the same logic as a military standard, which one would expect since the military standard (MIL-STD-2219 and MIL-STD-1595) served as the basis of D17.1 and D17.2. Old habits are slow to die.

Parent - - By Lawrence (*****) Date 02-22-2017 13:37

My inference is that you would prefer to have orbital and manual GTAW performance qualifications be separate.  If this is your preference... I agree and will say a few words to try to support your position from the Specification.

Having the "standard practices" for welding from your OEM's  GE, Pratt, Lockheed, etc.  are super valuable.  For subjects like yours, if you were to take the most stringent qualification requirements and place them in your own quality manual, this may be a solution.

To the Specification.
I'm looking at D17 2010 defines "Welder" via AWS A3.0 terms defines Welding Operator via AWS A3.0 separately.

Orbital welding safely falls within the description of Welding Operator whether or not filler us used. (in my opinion)

"Correlation Factors" between test welds and production welds are based on essential variables yes?

Those correlation factors are uniquely listed for Welders ( and Welding Operators (

Those correlation factors are somewhat shared, but not the same.   In my opinion they are uniquely listed for a reason; which is to have separate performance qualifications for each.  (Welders & Welding Operators).

My "opinion" above is supported (particularly in your case of orbital welding) by Where welding operators are qualified on all diameters via a single test assembly.  This is not the case for Welders. See{C} .   Also note less restriction on operator qualification on as related to table 5.4
Parent - - By Maggs47 (**) Date 02-22-2017 16:07

I agree with your welder vs welding operator argument.  While life might be easier if one test qualified both manual and orbital welding, I'd rather do a little more work now and be audit-proofed for the future.  Hopefully management buys into this argument and lets me run qualification testing for our orbital welders.

Thank you.
Parent - By Lawrence (*****) Date 02-22-2017 16:37
One last thing  :)

When I take things like this up my company chain of authority, I do not use the words "opinion" or "interpretation."

I use the clearly presented clauses in the specification to validate the required changes.   When I present each clause I say something along the lines of:....  "This is how the code reads"

If you do not present the notion of a grey area, the battle is half won with the first shot.
- - By bmarsh41 Date 03-01-2017 17:31
I am looking for a generic form for qualifying welders. I need the acceptance criteria of D17.1 in detail where would I be able to get this?
Parent - By Maggs47 (**) Date 03-01-2017 21:34
D17.1 provides a form (Figure 5.1).  Slap your company logo on top and a form number on the bottom and you're probably all good for your quality system.

D17.1 tells you the criteria throughout chapter 5.  Too much info to summarize here, but the references are all in that chapter.
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / AWS D17.1 Welder Qualification

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill