where expertise comes together - since 1996 -

The Largest Open Access Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)

Conference Proceedings, Articles, News, Exhibition, Forum, Network and more

where expertise comes together
- since 1996 -

VOGT Ultrasonics GmbH
non-destructive testing, services, training, ultrasonic systems, immersion and squirter inspection systems, PROline, digital radiology

4174 views
Career Discussions
Rick Lopez
R & D,
John Deere - Moline Technology Innovation Center, USA, Joined Jul 2011, 191

Rick Lopez

R & D,
John Deere - Moline Technology Innovation Center,
USA,
Joined Jul 2011
191
20:28 Jul-18-2012
Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not

I've spent some time looking, but have come up empty when trying to find technical papers or data showing a quantified difference between inspectors who are qualified and/or certified, and inspectors who are not. This difference could be in the form of probability of detection, or probability of inspection for example. Such a comparison would likely be tricky, as PoD is unique to a person and application, but if enough people were averaged, I would suppose that there could be a statistical difference.

Curious to know if anyone has seen such a thing.
Many thanks,
Rick

 
 Reply 
 
Jon Wallis
NDT Inspector, -
Netherlands, Joined Feb 2010, 626

Jon Wallis

NDT Inspector, -
Netherlands,
Joined Feb 2010
626
07:07 Jul-19-2012
Re: Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not
In Reply to Rick Lopez at 20:28 Jul-18-2012 (Opening).

Where in the world do people carry out ndt without qualification/certification?
Ok, RT performance maybe, but not interpretation which would be important here. Detection and interpretation of discontinuities is what matters with PoD and I think that is pretty well covered by rules, regs and norms.
I worry more about people who ARE qualified and don't know what they are doing.

 
 Reply 
 
gary whitworth
gary whitworth
10:53 Jul-19-2012
Re: Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not
In Reply to Jon Wallis at 07:07 Jul-19-2012 .

Jon,

That's a good point well put.
I noticed on one discussion board a comment eluding to the same thing about training centres churning out people with certs and they get onto a site with totally no idea.

It is an all too common scenario and a frightening one too.

 
 Reply 
 
Nigel Armstrong
Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom, Joined Oct 2000, 1096

Nigel Armstrong

Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom,
Joined Oct 2000
1096
16:21 Jul-19-2012
Re: Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not
In Reply to Jon Wallis at 07:07 Jul-19-2012 .

Jon

Universities, research and application centres spring to mind where very capable people do not hold traditional EN or ASNT certification

Certification (or lack thereof) says little about a persons actual capabilities - this needs to be considered in tandem with a CV and possibly further.

 
 Reply 
 
Jon Wallis
NDT Inspector, -
Netherlands, Joined Feb 2010, 626

Jon Wallis

NDT Inspector, -
Netherlands,
Joined Feb 2010
626
07:17 Jul-20-2012
Re: Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not
In Reply to Nigel Armstrong at 16:21 Jul-19-2012 .

Quite right, it's experience and knowledge that counts. When I first started in ndt this was at the beginning of cswip in the uk. At that time very few people had formal qualifications but they had masses of experience (at least in my green eyes!).
I wonder Nigel, whether many of the people with the education you suggested actually go and perform radiography at least in the quantities necessary to produce the stats that Rick needs.

 
 Reply 
 
Nigel Armstrong
Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom, Joined Oct 2000, 1096

Nigel Armstrong

Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom,
Joined Oct 2000
1096
16:36 Jul-30-2012
Re: Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not
In Reply to Jon Wallis at 07:17 Jul-20-2012 .

Jon

Sorry for the delay - missed your post initially.

As you are well-experienced, well-read and British I am sure you will have heard of Halmshaw, Croxon and others. These were academics first but also pragmatic men who were prepared to practice. I am certain that similar characters worked in most industrialised nations. We owe a great debt to these men.

Regards

Nigel

 
 Reply 
 
Jon Wallis
NDT Inspector, -
Netherlands, Joined Feb 2010, 626

Jon Wallis

NDT Inspector, -
Netherlands,
Joined Feb 2010
626
16:37 Aug-01-2012
Re: Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not
In Reply to Nigel Armstrong at 16:36 Jul-30-2012 .

Nigel,
Of course you are right, there are higher educated, academic types with practical experience who aren't (weren't) afraid to get their hands dirty. I only meant that I doubt if there are enough unqualified ndt'ers to provide a large enough sample for Rick's proposed study.
In my experience having in the past worked with such people (in ndt research), they had all obtained ndt levels.

 
 Reply 
 
Tim
Tim
19:26 Aug-02-2012
Re: Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not
In Reply to Rick Lopez at 20:28 Jul-18-2012 (Opening).

Hello to all,

I do not know of any statistics, but certification is really the only determining factor of whether a person is qualified or not.

Most everyone thinks that they are qualified. Just ask them. :)

You all know what I mean.

 
 Reply 
 
David Forsyth
R & D
TRI/Austin, USA, Joined Nov 2001, 41

David Forsyth

R & D
TRI/Austin,
USA,
Joined Nov 2001
41
17:04 Mar-08-2013
Re: Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not
In Reply to Rick Lopez at 20:28 Jul-18-2012 (Opening).

If you are testing performance via POD on inspectors doing technique X: Data shows that people who are doing inspections of technique X on a day to day basis do better than "experts" or senior staff or engineers who may do lots of things but not technique X.

Once that variation is taken away, there is no statistically significant benefit of 20 years vs 2 years, Level III vs Level I vs engineer, etc. that I have seen in the literature.

Regards, Dave.

 
 Reply 
 
Tim
Tim
18:06 Mar-08-2013
Re: Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not
In Reply to David Forsyth at 17:04 Mar-08-2013 .

Hello David,

Are you suggesting "monkey see - monkey do"? I would agree for very simple processes, but not for most tasks requiring a certified inspector.

I have witnessed a new inspector being introduced into a process and recognizing inherent processing defects that had been being overlooked by others. That leads me to believe that experience may be a positive.

Maybe I don't understand. ??

 
 Reply 
 
Ed Ginzel
R & D, -
Materials Research Institute, Canada, Joined Nov 1998, 1303

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1303
21:04 Mar-08-2013
Re: Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not
In Reply to Tim at 18:06 Mar-08-2013 .

I think David's comments are valid. On day-to-day work, a "certified" operator is "qualified" to do the work. But in many applications the certification is just one of the qualifications required. When a specialised technique is used or a non-standard component is tested, separating the qualified technique from the qualified operator is done in several standards. It is a popular process in nuclear applications now. In ASME XI Appendix VIII Performance demonstration requirements apply to personnel who detect, record, or interpret indications or size flaws in welds or components. Typically they are demonstrating detection of flaws that can be detected by the Procedure they are working to. The Procedure would be developed as a non-blind test to ensure detection of known flaws. If the procedure has been demonstrated to be effective (detecting all the known flaws) the PoD assessment of the personnel doing the test is then based on how well the operator follows the Procedure. If the procedure (or component) is complex then I would expect experienced and well trained operators to have a better PoD than the average certified operator that was not specially trained.

 
 Reply 
 
Tim
Tim
22:04 Mar-08-2013
Re: Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not
In Reply to Ed Ginzel at 21:04 Mar-08-2013 .

Hello Ed,

I agree with most of your comments. Maybe I am looking at this differently. As I commented earlier, qualification and certification are not the same. Qualification is a requirement to be certified, but many believe themselves to be qualified.

The examples you give are understood. Certification per NAS410 requires practical examination using any "special" techniques. Certification without demonstration is not acceptable. So, I don't necessarily agree that - "On day-to-day work, a "certified" operator is "qualified" to do the work."

It is the second statement of David's that I am not sure that I understand.

Thanks and Best of Luck!

 
 Reply 
 
Tony
Tony
03:39 Mar-09-2013
Re: Inspection PoD - qualified/certified vs. not
In Reply to Tim at 22:04 Mar-08-2013 .

Most underlings appreciate good leaders. They know how lucky they are, most having experienced bad ones.

 
 Reply 
 

Product Spotlight

Ultrasonic Probe Recharacterization Service

NDT Systems offers a comprehensive Aftercare and Recharacterization Service for all our ultrasonic
...
probes. The Recharacterization Service is fully compliant with International ASTM E1065 Standard Guide (and other applicable standards) and offers complete documentation, traceable to the ASTM E1065 Standard. For more details or to schedule Recharacterization Services contact ndtsales@ndtsystems.com
>

NEW - TD Focus-ScanRX

The NEW Next Generation Advanced UT platform, TD Focus ScanRX - Also available as a card stack solut
...
ion. Key Improvements 1. Data acquisition is significantly faster than current design 2. Better aesthetic – closely aligns with HandyScan RX 3. Improved IP rating (Target IP66) 4. Ruggedized housing 5. Connectors are protected from impact and ingress 6. Integrated stand and separate retractable handle easy to keep clean) 7. Touchscreen with ruggedized display glass 8. 3-Axis encoder input
>

ISAFE3 Intrinsically Safe Sensor System

ISAFE3 intrinsically safe sensor system of Vallen Systeme is especially targeted at the petrochemica
...
l - as well as oil and gas transportation industry. The sensor system is designed for permanent monitoring or periodic inspection tasks. Sensors are available for different AE-frequency ranges optimized for corrosion and fatigue crack detection and other applications. The ISAFE 3 sensor system consists of an AE-sensor (model ISAS3) certified according to ATEX/IEC for installation in zone 0, gas group IIC, IP68, 20 to +60 °C, and a signal isolator (model SISO3) certified for installation in zone 2. An ISAS3 sensor can be mounted in atmosphere or submerged, e.g. in water or crude oil. It is supported by mounting tools for temporary (magnets) or permanent (welded) installation. ISAFE3 supports automatic sensor coupling test and can be used with any AE signal processor supporting 28V supply at 90 mA peak, e.g. Vallen Systeme ASIP-2/A.
>

iProbe - USB Phased Array Probe

Turn your PC, Laptop or Tablet into a powerful 32:64 Phased Array system with our USB powered Phas
...
ed Array iProbe and inspection software package. Perform affordable weld inspection and corrosion mapping inspections with this powerful but small system. The probe has a 100V pulser, 8K PRF, dual axis encoder input and achieves outstanding signal quality.
>

Share...
We use technical and analytics cookies to ensure that we will give you the best experience of our website - More Info
Accept
top
this is debug window