D1.1:2015 did such an amazing job we didn't believe there was a need to revise the FC. We simply adopted D1.1:2015.

When it comes to precleaning, the FC simply couldn't say it better than D1.1, i.e., "you can weld on any surface contaminated with any Buxx Shxx so long as the completed weld meets all the other D1.1 requirements". That is so concise, why go into great detail regarding the relationship between hydrogen, surface preparation, and cracking? Just thinking about it probably gave the committee a headache. It is so much easier to ignore the science and data. Hey, global warming and the need to preclean is all "fake news". By the way, when did the "crotch grabber" get a seat on the D1.1 committee?"

With the new D1 philosophy in mind, one must question whether we need to include all the sketches of the prequalified groove details. Wouldn't it be sufficient to say any groove that produces an acceptable weld be adequate? For workmanship, wouldn't it be adequate to say, "Any weld that doesn't break meets D1.1?" With regards to welding parameters, wouldn't be easier to say, "Any welding parameter that produces an acceptable weld is good?"AWS could save paper and ink and the code would weigh 1/3 as much. It would also reflect what really happens on the shop floor and in the field.

We used to refer to the FC as "The Other Big Red Book". Now the FC is redundant, we have "The Big Red Book".

The attached photograph is a situation that seems to agree with the new philosophy of the D1 committee. The welder responsible for the weld in the photograph made the comment, "Why does it matter if the backing is or isn't  tight against the underside of the joint if the weld meets UT?"

Al