just

the facts

In my work I review and audit weldingprograms, procedures, and documentationall over the world. Through the years, Ihave noticed two specific areas where man-ufacturers and AWS Accredited TestFacilities (ATFs) frequently fall short. Bothof these areas are extremely important.

The first area is in the proper comple-tion of Procedure Qualification Records(PQRs), Welding Procedure Specifications(WPSs), and Welder Qualification TestRecords (WQTRs). We need to emphasizeproper use and generation of each of thesedocuments in our CWI training. TheExamination Question BankSubcommittee of the AWS CertificationCommittee has recently increased thenumber of questions on this subject in theCWI examination. It is important, forexample, to understand the differencebetween filler metal classification and fillermetal specification.

The second area of particular concernto me is the use of the CWI stamp. In thepast, a CWI was issued a stamp when heor she gained that status by successfullycompleting the examination. If the CWICertification was revoked or simplyallowed to expire, the individual still hadwhat appeared to be a valid CWI stampand no one was the wiser if the former

CWI continued using it, even though AWSdid not authorize that use.

In the past, I personally observed acase where a WPS had been used aftersomeone obliterated the original informa-tion, except the CWI stamp, with correc-tion fluid, and new, different welding infor-mation was entered. The doctored docu-ment was faxed to me as a valid WPS.

The American Welding Societyaddressed this situation in 2006 when itbegan issuing red inking pads and stampsthat included expiration dates. Today, it iseasy to tell if a stamp has expired and ifyou are looking at an original stampeddocument or a copy.

Most recently, while working in China,I encountered two instances in whichPQRs, WPSs, and WQTRs were riddledwith incorrect information. In one case,when I questioned the CWI about the inac-curacies, he lacked the knowledge toknow that the document was wrong. Thesecond instance occurred at another facil-ity. I reviewed some welding documentsthat again contained several errors. WhenI questioned the CWI whose stamp was onthe documents about each error, he obvi-ously knew that each was incorrect andwhy. He stated that the documentationwas routinely produced by another per-

son, whom he trusted and believed to beknowledgeable. The CWI had thenstamped the documents as if he hadreviewed them, although, in fact, he hadnot actually reviewed the information. Inboth of these cases, the result was incor-rect welding information documentationcontaining the stamp of a CWI.

Here’s what’s important about this: Ifyou did not personally produce or careful-ly review and approve the information, donot put your CWI stamp on it. Your stampand both of the stamps in the situations Irelated here look just like mine except forthe name and number. Every time some-one misuses or carelessly uses a CWIstamp, it reflects poorly on every CWI anddiminishes the respect given to the certifi-cation. Therefore, the value of your stampand mine is lowered.

AWS offers a class on proper use andcompletion of these documents. If you arenot entirely confident that you have itright, take the class. It will count as con-tinuing education units toward your nextnine-year CWI renewal.

We have all worked hard to gain therecognition that comes with being aCertified Welding Inspector. We must alsobe diligent and work hard to maintain itsvalue and our integrity. �

Protect Your CWI StampBY LYNDSEY DECKARD

Lyndsey Deckard (Deckard@pbworld.com) is Quality Manager of the Vehicle Division of Parsons Brinckerhoff Transit & Rail Systems,Inc. He is an AWS Senior Certified Welding Inspector, an ASQ Certified Quality Auditor, and a member of the AWS CertificationCommittee, Examination Question Bank Subcommittee, and Ethics Subcommittee.

10 • INSPECTION TRENDS

Just the Facts IT Winter 2010:Layout 1 12/22/09 3:48 PM Page 10