Forum General Discussions      Re: PCN vs. ASNT Posted by: Andre Fouche (PID_3991), E-mail: Address, on December 07, 2008 at 07:03 : In Reply to: Re: PCN vs. ASNT posted by : Oliviero Oldani , E-mail: Address, on December 06, 2008 at 21:49 : ----------- Start Original Message ----------- : Dear all, : I followed this discussion, which is a big subject for all the world market. : In Italy too is living the question: Which is the best certification scheme? : I think that the manufacturer shall have the responsibility to understand the operator skilling. Any certification scheme can release only the written witness of the base matter understanding. : Only the manufacturer can add the necessary practical experience and skilling for the base matter application on their own product. : The main point is the presence of the level III. Today the level III is mainly a consultant. But a consultant seen as a cost only. : The manufacturers are understanding that they need the level II to satisfy the codes and standard. It should be more clear that they need the level III principally. : : Both Nigel and Chris have made valid points. If the manufacturer does not have permanent Level III to check the quality of the inspectors, using third party services is next best. That is where we, the qualified and experienced NDT professionals can help. : : There was a committee to assess the quality of NDT personnel (their ability to detect certain defects in specimens) in which one of my colleagues was involved. Several countries took part in that round robin study. The results of such studies should be well publicised to sensitise the manufacturers, customers and QS agencies to the need of personnel qualification specific to the job on hand. : : Best wishes. : : Swamy : : The NDT Guru : : : 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 ------------ The subject broached is probably one of the most controversial subjects within the NDT community. It is felt that most manufacturers utilising "In House" NDT personnel, do so as a necessary evil, ensuring that they have the coverage to appease the third part inspectorates and insurance industries. Again, many of these inductries also do not prescribe to the Level III person as a necessity in their quality programme, due to the obvious increased costs. They are therefore left to the mercy of their personnel, who in many cases are underexperienced or undertrained to cope with the demands put upon them by the production sector of the manufacturer irrespective of qualification systems incorporated. Many of the technicians involved are not exposed to varieties of examination scenarios. such as turbine components, nuclear stations and requirements etc. Also, they seem to be channeled into certain industries and not be allowed out of those industries, meaning, that a boiler technician will only work on the boiler and not any ancilliary equipment. Also, many companies tend to limit the range of disciplines in which they qualify their technicians, for example, a radiographer is rarely trained to do ultrasonics etc. In my experience, even surface techs are never exposed to working with coils, prods, fluorescent media etc. The broader education of these technicians will allow for a more complete technician with more skills and awareness of possible solutions to inspection dilemmas. The long term solution would be for industry in general to stop seeing NDT as a necessary evil and to accord the industry a more professional status. This will serve the industry well and increase the quality factor of the NDT practitioners. Follow Ups: Post a Followup: Name: E-Mail: Subject: Comments: ----------- Start Original Message ----------- : : Dear all, : : I followed this discussion, which is a big subject for all the world market. : : In Italy too is living the question: Which is the best certification scheme? : : I think that the manufacturer shall have the responsibility to understand the operator skilling. Any certification scheme can release only the written witness of the base matter understanding. : : Only the manufacturer can add the necessary practical experience and skilling for the base matter application on their own product. : : The main point is the presence of the level III. Today the level III is mainly a consultant. But a consultant seen as a cost only. : : The manufacturers are understanding that they need the level II to satisfy the codes and standard. It should be more clear that they need the level III principally. : : : Both Nigel and Chris have made valid points. If the manufacturer does not have permanent Level III to check the quality of the inspectors, using third party services is next best. That is where we, the qualified and experienced NDT professionals can help. : : : There was a committee to assess the quality of NDT personnel (their ability to detect certain defects in specimens) in which one of my colleagues was involved. Several countries took part in that round robin study. The results of such studies should be well publicised to sensitise the manufacturers, customers and QS agencies to the need of personnel qualification specific to the job on hand. : : : Best wishes. : : : Swamy : : : The NDT Guru : : : : 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. : The subject broached is probably one of the most controversial subjects within the NDT community. It is felt that most manufacturers utilising "In House" NDT personnel, do so as a necessary evil, ensuring that they have the coverage to appease the third part inspectorates and insurance industries. Again, many of these inductries also do not prescribe to the Level III person as a necessity in their quality programme, due to the obvious increased costs. They are therefore left to the mercy of their personnel, who in many cases are underexperienced or undertrained to cope with the demands put upon them by the production sector of the manufacturer irrespective of qualification systems incorporated. : Many of the technicians involved are not exposed to varieties of examination scenarios. such as turbine components, nuclear stations and requirements etc. Also, they seem to be channeled into certain industries and not be allowed out of those industries, meaning, that a boiler technician will only work on the boiler and not any ancilliary equipment. : Also, many companies tend to limit the range of disciplines in which they qualify their technicians, for example, a radiographer is rarely trained to do ultrasonics etc. : In my experience, even surface techs are never exposed to working with coils, prods, fluorescent media etc. The broader education of these technicians will allow for a more complete technician with more skills and awareness of possible solutions to inspection dilemmas. : The long term solution would be for industry in general to stop seeing NDT as a necessary evil and to accord the industry a more professional status. This will serve the industry well and increase the quality factor of the NDT practitioners. ------------ 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