"supervision" for non-CWI per D1.5

Date 09-05-2006 15:46

D1.5 paragraph 6.1.3.1: All Inspectors responsible for QC and QA acceptance or rejection of materials and workmanship shall be qualified as follows:
(1) The Inspector shall be an AWS Certified Welding
Inspector (CWI)...
(2) [Canadian equivalent to (1)]
(3) [owner approval based on training & experience]

D1.5 paragraph 6.1.3.3: The Inspector may be supported by Assistant Inspectors who may perform specific inspection functions under the supervision of the Inspector. ... The work of Assistant Inspectors shall be regularly monitored, generally on a daily basis, by the Inspector.

I'd like to hear not just from fabricators but from owners (so if you could, let me know which camp you're in):
Can "specific inspection functions (from para 6.1.3.3) include final inspection as described in para 6.1.3.1? If so, what constitutes "under the supervision"? What constitutes "monitored"?

This has been interpreted anywhere from "the CWI is above the non-CWI in the company org chart and is physically present somewhere in the building most of the time" to "the CWI looks over the shoulder of the non-CWI a goodly portion of the time".

What do y'all think?

Hg

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 09-05-2006 16:03

Hg, {fabricator camp}
I think if the fabricator is in the AISC's certification program, they will have addressed this in their QC manual to satisfy the essiential elements that are required by the AISC's certification program. Personally, I feel that the CWI should be within the same building/plant and readily accessible should the assistant inspectors need him to make a decision on something. As for th experience, they would have to qualify under the training/experience that was written in the QC manual and documented as necessary in the file.

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 09-05-2006 16:57

Hg, {Fabricator Camp too}

I agree with John however with the precaution that you are likely to get as many opinions as there are inspectors. To make sure it's done properly, as John states, it should be spelled out in writing. I've worked on ajobsite that was 300 square miles in area, as an Inspection Supervisor, how would one define those circumstances?

By 803056

Date 09-05-2006 20:29

I believe jon20013 is correct when he said the number of different answers is about equal to the number of inspector's responding.

My experience has been that many states require the inspectors (working on bridges) responsible for accepting and rejecting work to be qualified as a CWI or SCWI per AWS QC1. They usually don't permit final acceptance or rejection by an assistant that is not a CWI. That simplifies the matter when the project specifications spell it out for the fabricator.

My question is; "Have you reviewed the project specifications or other contract documents?" The answer may be in the project documents.

Meeting the minimum requirements of the code may not satisfy your customer. I try to do more than then meet the minimum requirements, I try to satisfy the customer's "expectations". There is a history of failed businesses that met the minimum requirements of the "code", but not the customer's expectations. Unhappy customers do not usually return with their repeat business.

Best regards - Al
(third party inspection)

By jon20013 (*****)

Date 09-05-2006 20:48

Absolutely Al. All too often, people tend to forget, the Codes are written to establish MINIMUM requirements. I mean, look at the maximum allowable "acceptable" RT images just for example... if one of my guy's consistantly laid down welds like the one's in the Code book that I could "accept" I would definately be looking for some new welders!

By NEQA

Date 09-26-2006 16:09

From an Owners Camp............

We do not accept D1.5, items (1) and (2). Our construction contracts clearly states inspectors will be selected by the owner. The criteria we use for selecting is usually based on our prior experience with him/her. Sometimes (depending on locale) we engage the services of a third party agency. However, even then, we obtain resumes of the agencies personnel and we decide whom to engage.

All things being equal, we will tend to lean toward a CWI. Unfortunately, there are many, many incompetent and unreliable CWI's out there. I have concluded a CWI really doesn't mean all that much. None of the top five inspectors we usually engage are CWI's.

In my view, if a CWI chooses to enlist the aid of an Assistant Inspector, that is his/her choice. And the CWI can assign the assistant whatever chores he/she sees fit. However, he (the CWI) is solely responsible for successfully completeing his/her assignment - and it is his/her feet that will be held to the fire.

By vonash

Date 01-15-2007 23:32 Edited 01-15-2007 23:38

Whew!
According to some of these posts from prominent AWS forum respondents: CWI qualification, expertise and status - in fabrication shop organizational charts - are on a
Lesser level of importance than company sponsored employees.
Does this mean that a welder looking at another welder's work in lieu of a CWI is minimum requirements for control of quality as long as the shop writes it into their QC manual? Yes!
Would I recommend a shop to one of my clients knowing they practice minimum quality control throughout their fabrication process? NO!
I have worked long and hard to support the steel manufacture, fabrication, erection, and testing industry and I apologize to anyone who may feel slighted by my remarks, I am only one voice and I intend no malice.
There may be Shops out there that disseminate this practice to their sub-contactors who treat the AWS standard as a secondary document "If it's not on the shop prints, it isn't so". I hope not.
My Best Regards,
VonAsh

By Wannafish Date 01-26-2007 19:43

"This has been interpreted anywhere from "the CWI is above the non-CWI in the company org chart and is physically present somewhere in the building most of the time" to "the CWI looks over the shoulder of the non-CWI a goodly portion of the time".

Owner here...

Re: The Inspector Qualification The way I read it, the three "...acceptable qualification bases..." listed include the word "or" at the end of each description signifying they are all of the same hierarchy - not one is "above" the other .

I see no requirement in AWS for a "CWI" to monitor the Assistant Inspectors; instead I believe it means whoever is/are the desiginated Inspector(s) are ultimately responsible for the work of the Assistant Inspector(s) (and therefore are required to monitor them).

By HgTX

Date 01-29-2007 21:17

The "Inspector" meets one of the three qualification bases. No hierarchy implied, either by AWS or by me. But the Inspector will be a CWI, Canadian equivalent, or other Owner-defined equivalent.

Then there are the "Assistant Inspectors", who do not need to be qualified in accordance with any of those three bases. But they must be "monitored" per AWS.

My question is what the monitoring relationship need be between the Inspector (typically a CWI) and these assistants.

Hg