where expertise comes together - since 1996

Web's Largest Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT)
Open Access Database (Conference Proceedings, Articles, News), Exhibition, Forum, Network

All Forum Boards
Technical Discussions >
code case 181, 2359
Career Discussions
Job Offers
Job Seeks
Classified Ads
About NDT.net
Articles & News

NDTSS - Non Destructive Testing Society of Singapore
Visit us for 15th APCNDT 2017

800 views
08:50 Mar-04-2008
scottie
code case 181, 2359

Can anyone explain to me where lvl II stand now. As the case states all final data interpretation shall be done by a LVL III, what is the pint in having us LVL II on site if we cant sentence the data. Does this mean that we all have to get LVL III to carry on working


 
01:17 Mar-04-2008
mj
Re: code case 181, 2359 ----------- Start Original Message -----------
: Can anyone explain to me where lvl II stand now. As the case states all final data interpretation shall be done by a LVL III, what is the pint in having us LVL II on site if we cant sentence the data. Does this mean that we all have to get LVL III to carry on working
------------ End Original Message ------------

level II can collect the data and make a overall onsite interpretation, but final review and acceptance from Level III. its realy appricated to go for like that way. because 1.high skills required for TOFD interpreation, that a short experiance level II can't do
2. atleast 2 people should interpretate the data (Most of the End client don't know how to interpretate like Radiography


 
01:31 Mar-04-2008
scottie
Re: code case 181, 2359 but surely if lvlIII is reviewing, and on one site u may have 5 or more ToFd crews that this will just prolong getting the results, and in answer to the other part i know more lvl II with much more experience than a lvl II so would a better intrepretation or wording be that the final analysis is performed by someone with for example 4 yrs experience

------- Start Original Message -----------
: : Can anyone explain to me where lvl II stand now. As the case states all final data interpretation shall be done by a LVL III, what is the pint in having us LVL II on site if we cant sentence the data. Does this mean that we all have to get LVL III to carry on working
: level II can collect the data and make a overall onsite interpretation, but final review and acceptance from Level III. its realy appricated to go for like that way. because 1.high skills required for TOFD interpreation, that a short experiance level II can't do
: 2. atleast 2 people should interpretate the data (Most of the End client don't know how to interpretate like Radiography
------------ End Original Message ------------




 
02:29 Mar-04-2008

Nigel Armstrong

Engineering, - Specialist services
United Kingdom,
Joined Oct 2000
1094
Re: code case 181, 2359 Clause (j) of both Code Case 181 for ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping and Code Case 2235-9 for ASME BPV Code only calls for REVIEW by a Level III when the data analysis and interpretation has been carried out by a proprly-qualified level II. Earlier in both documents clause (f) states "Only Level II or III personnel shall analyze the data or interpret the results". No restriction is placed on properly-qualified Level II techs. Its a REVIEW only to ensure that all data is present. The following paragraph does give the option of a final interpretation and evaluation by a Level III after initial acquisition and interpretation by a qualified level II. I cannot see many contractors accepting to go down this route.

Pragmatically, I dont think there is any likelihood of all such work going to level III personnel only. GHow about anyone else?


----------- Start Original Message -----------
: Can anyone explain to me where lvl II stand now. As the case states all final data interpretation shall be done by a LVL III, what is the pint in having us LVL II on site if we cant sentence the data. Does this mean that we all have to get LVL III to carry on working
------------ End Original Message ------------




 
03:43 Mar-04-2008
scottie
Re: code case 181, 2359 I agree with what you are saying but unfortunately some people that are now supposedly experts and working for plant owners, insist that the final analysis is carried out by a lvl III this has to be addressed by the board at ASME

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: Clause (j) of both Code Case 181 for ASME B31 Code for Pressure Piping and Code Case 2235-9 for ASME BPV Code only calls for REVIEW by a Level III when the data analysis and interpretation has been carried out by a proprly-qualified level II. Earlier in both documents clause (f) states "Only Level II or III personnel shall analyze the data or interpret the results". No restriction is placed on properly-qualified Level II techs. Its a REVIEW only to ensure that all data is present. The following paragraph does give the option of a final interpretation and evaluation by a Level III after initial acquisition and interpretation by a qualified level II. I cannot see many contractors accepting to go down this route.
: Pragmatically, I dont think there is any likelihood of all such work going to level III personnel only. GHow about anyone else?
:
: : Can anyone explain to me where lvl II stand now. As the case states all final data interpretation shall be done by a LVL III, what is the pint in having us LVL II on site if we cant sentence the data. Does this mean that we all have to get LVL III to carry on working
------------ End Original Message ------------




 


© NDT.net - The Web's Largest Portal of Nondestructive Testing (NDT) ISSN 1435-4934

Open Access Database, |Conference Proceedings| |Articles| |News| |Exhibition| |Forum| |Professional Network|