General Discussions: Re: PCN vs. ASNT

Forum General Discussions

Re: PCN vs. ASNT
Posted by: Dr D Dulay (PID_2231), E-mail: Address, on December 06, 2008 at 14:06 :
In Reply to: Re: PCN vs. ASNT posted by : Nigel Armstrong , E-mail: Address, on December 06, 2008 at 12:57 :
Gentlemen
I have monitored the very lively discussion on this subject, whilst I am very busy I thought I aught to add a few comments.
1. The Employer based system (i.e.SNT-TC-1A) and the central certification system (i.e. PCN) are as good as the service provider or the Level III controlling this activity. No matter what you do or say it all comes down to the quality of training, examination and certification process.
2. Most people go for training and take exams and with their newly gained certificate of qualification believe they are ready to go to industry and perform tests and valid inspections. This not so, there is a crucial element, of the SNT-TC-1A and other employer based systems as well as PCN and other central certification scheme, that the qualified person should now go for practical experience. The length of experience being dependent on NDT method and is conducted under the supervision of an already certificated Level II or Level III. It is only when this experience element is complete is the person considered fully certified to perform the task appropriate for the employer. It is during this period the qualified individual gains the specific knowledge and experience for the method, techniques and materials etc that he or she is likely to work on.
3. The proliferation of various centres for NDT training, qualification for all schemes means quality will vary. In the Aerospace industry we also use an employer based system based on NAS 410 and EN 4179. The test and training centres like mine as well as others participating in the Aerospace industry are continuously monitored by the various authorities i.e BINDT and the UK NANDTB (National Aerospace NDT Board) as well as Aerospace customers. This ensures the issues of poor quality is minimised.
I am aware that the same solutions as the Aerospace industry cannot apply to non-aerospace industry, so I think a discussion is clearly necessary, and I suggest an international forum is needed where some rational and solutions can be agreed that will in the future provide the quality of certified operators that all are looking for. This clearly will be of interest to both the customers as well as operators.
Personally speaking I have an idea which I believe will solve this problem.
I am currently looking at the financial viability of it all.
Dr Dulay
----------- Start Original Message -----------
: Hi Chris
: SNT-TC-1A is a company (Owner) certification program. Similarly, CP-189 which I believe to be more rigorous. Employer-certification programs can work well where there is consistency - a regular workforce in a fixed location with long term planning. However ASNT must have realised the system's short-comings and failure to meet the requirements of certain sections of industry because both the NDT Level III and ACCP central certification programe were introduced.
: The nearest I know of to a company imposing another system on top of central certification (in the case of ISO 9712/EN 473/ PCN certification) is when the already qualified practitioner has to demonstrate capability through testing of test pieces selected by the Owner. In terms of general construction and fabrication, I dont think that the Owner would be prepared to pay the extra costs involved - consider many major engineering companies will not have a permanent Level III presence in their workforce. Whilst Outside Agencies provide sterling service, how can the Owner be certain of the familiarity with the Owner's processes and products necessary for prompt and accurate solutions of inspection problems.
: But certainly in any case it is necessary to raise the quality of inspections when major engineering projects design basis is the premise that all significant defects are detected and simultaneously understaff the inspection (both weld inspection and NDT) for the construction phase of the project.
: Cheers
: Nigel
: : : I am strongly dis agree comments about PCN Standard, I am suggesting ASNT also to issue Level 1 & 2 certificate through general society, institution. So no need to blame either ASNT or PCN or etc.
: : : Regards,
: : : S.Senthilkumar
: : : : Abdullah
: : : : its not a great question as a good ASNT certified technician is just as good as a bad PCN certified technician.
: : : : The other issue is you are not distinguishing as to which form of ASNT you want to make a comparision with. ASNT SNT-TC-1A is an employer based certification and in some peoples eyes is therefore inferior to a third party issued certification such as PCN or the ASNT ACCP.
: : : : It also may vary dependent upon which discipline you wnat to employ MT & PT togeter with RT are relatively simple to compare. When you become more complex such as RT Film Interpretation or UT you may want to performance demonstration test all personnel and this takes out of the equation the certification. It then ensures the personnel you employ are truely capable.
: : I would have to agree that there are some good and some bad in both situations. The best thing I've seen a truly concerned owner do is to develop a certification process of there own. A program in addition to the above mentioned programs.
------------ End Original Message ------------

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup:

Name:

E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
----------- Start Original Message ----------- : Gentlemen : I have monitored the very lively discussion on this subject, whilst I am very busy I thought I aught to add a few comments. : 1. The Employer based system (i.e.SNT-TC-1A) and the central certification system (i.e. PCN) are as good as the service provider or the Level III controlling this activity. No matter what you do or say it all comes down to the quality of training, examination and certification process. : 2. Most people go for training and take exams and with their newly gained certificate of qualification believe they are ready to go to industry and perform tests and valid inspections. This not so, there is a crucial element, of the SNT-TC-1A and other employer based systems as well as PCN and other central certification scheme, that the qualified person should now go for practical experience. The length of experience being dependent on NDT method and is conducted under the supervision of an already certificated Level II or Level III. It is only when this experience element is complete is the person considered fully certified to perform the task appropriate for the employer. It is during this period the qualified individual gains the specific knowledge and experience for the method, techniques and materials etc that he or she is likely to work on. : 3. The proliferation of various centres for NDT training, qualification for all schemes means quality will vary. In the Aerospace industry we also use an employer based system based on NAS 410 and EN 4179. The test and training centres like mine as well as others participating in the Aerospace industry are continuously monitored by the various authorities i.e BINDT and the UK NANDTB (National Aerospace NDT Board) as well as Aerospace customers. This ensures the issues of poor quality is minimised. : I am aware that the same solutions as the Aerospace industry cannot apply to non-aerospace industry, so I think a discussion is clearly necessary, and I suggest an international forum is needed where some rational and solutions can be agreed that will in the future provide the quality of certified operators that all are looking for. This clearly will be of interest to both the customers as well as operators. : Personally speaking I have an idea which I believe will solve this problem. : I am currently looking at the financial viability of it all. : Dr Dulay : ----------- Start Original Message ----------- : : Hi Chris : : SNT-TC-1A is a company (Owner) certification program. Similarly, CP-189 which I believe to be more rigorous. Employer-certification programs can work well where there is consistency - a regular workforce in a fixed location with long term planning. However ASNT must have realised the system's short-comings and failure to meet the requirements of certain sections of industry because both the NDT Level III and ACCP central certification programe were introduced. : : The nearest I know of to a company imposing another system on top of central certification (in the case of ISO 9712/EN 473/ PCN certification) is when the already qualified practitioner has to demonstrate capability through testing of test pieces selected by the Owner. In terms of general construction and fabrication, I dont think that the Owner would be prepared to pay the extra costs involved - consider many major engineering companies will not have a permanent Level III presence in their workforce. Whilst Outside Agencies provide sterling service, how can the Owner be certain of the familiarity with the Owner's processes and products necessary for prompt and accurate solutions of inspection problems. : : But certainly in any case it is necessary to raise the quality of inspections when major engineering projects design basis is the premise that all significant defects are detected and simultaneously understaff the inspection (both weld inspection and NDT) for the construction phase of the project. : : Cheers : : Nigel : : : : I am strongly dis agree comments about PCN Standard, I am suggesting ASNT also to issue Level 1 & 2 certificate through general society, institution. So no need to blame either ASNT or PCN or etc. : : : : Regards, : : : : S.Senthilkumar : : : : : Abdullah : : : : : its not a great question as a good ASNT certified technician is just as good as a bad PCN certified technician. : : : : : The other issue is you are not distinguishing as to which form of ASNT you want to make a comparision with. ASNT SNT-TC-1A is an employer based certification and in some peoples eyes is therefore inferior to a third party issued certification such as PCN or the ASNT ACCP. : : : : : It also may vary dependent upon which discipline you wnat to employ MT & PT togeter with RT are relatively simple to compare. When you become more complex such as RT Film Interpretation or UT you may want to performance demonstration test all personnel and this takes out of the equation the certification. It then ensures the personnel you employ are truely capable. : : : I would have to agree that there are some good and some bad in both situations. The best thing I've seen a truly concerned owner do is to develop a certification process of there own. A program in addition to the above mentioned programs. ------------ End Original Message ------------

Optional Link URL:
Example: "http://www....html". Alternative write "http://www.ndt.net/wshop/attach/filename.htm" if you transfered a filename.htm via FTP

Page Title: is important!

Optional Image URL:
http://www....gif

Attention! Please click the button only once. This may take a moment to process
Forum General Discussions Help