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
Career Discussions >
Fallout from new NRCan Rules
Job Offers
Job Seeks
Classified Ads
About NDT.net
Articles & News

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

1220 views
05:01 Mar-24-2006

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1208
Fallout from new NRCan Rules

In 2005 the Canadian General Standards Board committee on NDT Certification voted in favour of adopting the ISO 9712 2005 version of the certification. It was pointed out that there were several places throughout the new ISO document where there is no specific detail and some latitude is given to the Certifying Agency (CA). NRCan (the government organisation responsible for the administration of the Canadian NDT certification programme) came up with a “Letter of Implementation” back on 29 April 2005. This was a set of “recommendations” that highlighted how the CA proposed to address concerns of this latitude via a series of “policies”. When, on 29 July 2005 the CGSB Certification Committee was circulated the ISO 9712:2005 document to vote on, a revised version of these recommendations was attached for information. These latitudes became the Policy Rules that NRCan uses where discretion had been provided for in the ISO document.

I voted affirmative on the ISO document but there was NO vote on the Rules. As committee members voting on the ISO document, we were just instructed to read the Rules. No mechanism was allowed to stop them. In the cover letter to the Rules, Rick Murphy writes to the CGSB secretary: I have attached 15 rules of implementation that were forged in later discussion and communication with NRCan Level 3 examiners, the members of the NDT Advisory Committee to MTL (50% Level 3s) and several training organizations such as CINDE, SAIT, NAIT, etc. These are the rules they suggest and NRCan is prepared to implement these rules. I suggest that it would be useful to distribute these 'rules of implementation' to the members of the CGSB NDT Personnel Committee before or with the voting ballot.

It was not until people started calling me, asking about training times, that I tweaked on the new issues. Training must now include practical time and now my correspondence courses are no longer viable options. This is not actually a written Rule in the Letter of Implementation, but instead a unilateral change of policy that reversed the conditions of the previous 21 years. This came from the unilateral re-interpretation of the Note 2 in Table 1 of ISO 9712. This same note has existed since the 1990 DIS form of the ISO 9712 document; NOTE 2: Training hours include both practical and theory courses.

I have always read this as the total time can be made up using courses that are theory based and practical based. e.g. if I gave a course in theory at UT Level 2 for 40 hours then the student could take another course that was hands-on and lasted another 40 hours...or I could give an 80 hour UT course with the theory and written materials and software simulations, etc. Having set precedence over the past 21 years I see no reason to change policy on the matter.

But the correspondence programme elimination is not likely to be the only item to suffer in the Brave New World arranged by NRCan and its NDT Advisory Committee. I invite interested Canadian certification members to view the NRCan Rules and my opinions on them at http://www.mri.on.ca/training_info.htm
My estimates indicate that the annual costs related to the increased training requirements could be well over a million dollars when both direct and indirect costs are tallied. I invite others to assess for themselves if the Rules are fair or if they pander to a small lobby group.



 
04:23 Mar-27-2006
Dave Stewart
Re: Fallout from new NRCan Rules I have just finished reading the NRCan Rules and I would have to agree with Mr. Ed Ginzel that it does not stipulate that both practical and theory courses must be taken in order to qualify. If this was the meaning of the rule, than I am sure the total hours for both would have been stated. As it does not I am lead to believe that this rule indicates what Ed has stated that it can be a total of practical, a total of theory or a combination of both.

I would suggest that the NRCan look at the failure rates from all the training facilities up until the present. They may find that the lowest failure rate came from The Materials Research Institute which is a correspondence course. Not all of us are able to take time off work or travel to the various training facilities to take a course. The correspondence course is obviously a very important option to many of us. I would not like to see this option taken away from those of us that can not afford the time or the travel to a training center.

The correspondence course has worked for many years (check failure rates), so why is it no longer a viable option?

Thank you

Dave Stewart




 
08:23 Mar-27-2006

Ed Ginzel

R & D, -
Materials Research Institute,
Canada,
Joined Nov 1998
1208
Re: Fallout from new NRCan Rules Thanks for the support Dave.
Actually the correspondence programme is only a bit better than average...but the best equipped formal schools with loads of equipment/samples for practical training are in fact at the top of the failure rates. The lowest comes from a great organisation in eastern Ontario (where you got your training). But recall that "school" (if it cn be called a school) chooses the students. They also can easily get rid of those with a poor aptitute or poor attitude. I suppose if all the other schools got to select only the best to go for exams then the overall failure rates might drop.
Ed


----------- Start Original Message -----------
: I have just finished reading the NRCan Rules and I would have to agree with Mr. Ed Ginzel that it does not stipulate that both practical and theory courses must be taken in order to qualify. If this was the meaning of the rule, than I am sure the total hours for both would have been stated. As it does not I am lead to believe that this rule indicates what Ed has stated that it can be a total of practical, a total of theory or a combination of both.
: I would suggest that the NRCan look at the failure rates from all the training facilities up until the present. They may find that the lowest failure rate came from The Materials Research Institute which is a correspondence course. Not all of us are able to take time off work or travel to the various training facilities to take a course. The correspondence course is obviously a very important option to many of us. I would not like to see this option taken away from those of us that can not afford the time or the travel to a training center.
: The correspondence course has worked for many years (check failure rates), so why is it no longer a viable option?
: Thank you
: Dave Stewart
------------ End Original Message ------------




 
01:50 Dec-15-2006
Csaba Hollo
Re: Fallout from new NRCan Rules ----------- Start Original Message -----------
: Thanks for the support Dave.
: Actually the correspondence programme is only a bit better than average...but the best equipped formal schools with loads of equipment/samples for practical training are in fact at the top of the failure rates. The lowest comes from a great organisation in eastern Ontario (where you got your training). But recall that "school" (if it cn be called a school) chooses the students. They also can easily get rid of those with a poor aptitute or poor attitude. I suppose if all the other schools got to select only the best to go for exams then the overall failure rates might drop.
: Ed
:
: : I have just finished reading the NRCan Rules and I would have to agree with Mr. Ed Ginzel that it does not stipulate that both practical and theory courses must be taken in order to qualify. If this was the meaning of the rule, than I am sure the total hours for both would have been stated. As it does not I am lead to believe that this rule indicates what Ed has stated that it can be a total of practical, a total of theory or a combination of both.
: : I would suggest that the NRCan look at the failure rates from all the training facilities up until the present. They may find that the lowest failure rate came from The Materials Research Institute which is a correspondence course. Not all of us are able to take time off work or travel to the various training facilities to take a course. The correspondence course is obviously a very important option to many of us. I would not like to see this option taken away from those of us that can not afford the time or the travel to a training center.
: : The correspondence course has worked for many years (check failure rates), so why is it no longer a viable option?
: : Thank you
: : Dave Stewart
------------ End Original Message ------------

As an interesting aside, gentleman, I was wondering if anyone was aware that there is an effective 'statue of limitations' on training according to NRCan? A colleague brought to my attention NRCan's current policy is that training hours obtained over 10 years ago would not qualify for current certification applications. At first light, I did not think that this was such a detriment, due to some of the changing technologies in some methods.

In addition, I felt that anyone obtaining course hours for a particular test method should be able to obtain the requisite experience time within the 10 year period in order to challenge the exams.

Unfortunately, for me, because of this rule, much of my training will not qualify to challenge the Level 3 certifications without further (considerable) classroom time. So having almost 25 years in the industry, 12 years as a level 2 in all methods, with regular refresher training (which apparently, doesn't count), I find myself having to spend another 5 to 6 thousand dollars, in addition to the NRCan fees, in order to satisfy the requirements in order to upgrade my certification.

Now i am going to say that I don't have a problem with this rule. My problem is that I have not seen any documentation or record regarding this policy change. Had this notification been made to all interested parties, I may have hastened the process in order to take advantage of the application of my previous training.

What do you all think of this?

Csaba


 
03:35 Dec-16-2006

J. Mark Davis

Teacher, And Consultant
University of Ultrasonics, Birmingham, Alabama,
USA,
Joined Mar 2000
85
Re: Fallout from new NRCan Rules Gentlemen,

Excuse my ignorance, but what are the NRCan Rules.

I have not heard of this one.

Is this a Canadian Requirement?

Thanks,

Mark

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: : Thanks for the support Dave.
: : Actually the correspondence programme is only a bit better than average...but the best equipped formal schools with loads of equipment/samples for practical training are in fact at the top of the failure rates. The lowest comes from a great organisation in eastern Ontario (where you got your training). But recall that "school" (if it cn be called a school) chooses the students. They also can easily get rid of those with a poor aptitute or poor attitude. I suppose if all the other schools got to select only the best to go for exams then the overall failure rates might drop.
: : Ed
: :
: : : I have just finished reading the NRCan Rules and I would have to agree with Mr. Ed Ginzel that it does not stipulate that both practical and theory courses must be taken in order to qualify. If this was the meaning of the rule, than I am sure the total hours for both would have been stated. As it does not I am lead to believe that this rule indicates what Ed has stated that it can be a total of practical, a total of theory or a combination of both.
: : : I would suggest that the NRCan look at the failure rates from all the training facilities up until the present. They may find that the lowest failure rate came from The Materials Research Institute which is a correspondence course. Not all of us are able to take time off work or travel to the various training facilities to take a course. The correspondence course is obviously a very important option to many of us. I would not like to see this option taken away from those of us that can not afford the time or the travel to a training center.
: : : The correspondence course has worked for many years (check failure rates), so why is it no longer a viable option?
: : : Thank you
: : : Dave Stewart
: As an interesting aside, gentleman, I was wondering if anyone was aware that there is an effective 'statue of limitations' on training according to NRCan? A colleague brought to my attention NRCan's current policy is that training hours obtained over 10 years ago would not qualify for current certification applications. At first light, I did not think that this was such a detriment, due to some of the changing technologies in some methods.
: In addition, I felt that anyone obtaining course hours for a particular test method should be able to obtain the requisite experience time within the 10 year period in order to challenge the exams.
: Unfortunately, for me, because of this rule, much of my training will not qualify to challenge the Level 3 certifications without further (considerable) classroom time. So having almost 25 years in the industry, 12 years as a level 2 in all methods, with regular refresher training (which apparently, doesn't count), I find myself having to spend another 5 to 6 thousand dollars, in addition to the NRCan fees, in order to satisfy the requirements in order to upgrade my certification.
: Now i am going to say that I don't have a problem with this rule. My problem is that I have not seen any documentation or record regarding this policy change. Had this notification been made to all interested parties, I may have hastened the process in order to take advantage of the application of my previous training.
: What do you all think of this?
: Csaba
------------ End Original Message ------------




 
06:10 Dec-16-2006
Csaba Hollo
Re: Fallout from new NRCan Rules
Hi Mark,

NRCan refers to Natural Resources Canada. The certifying agency in Canada comes under that department. Some more info if you are interested at http://ndt.nrcan.gc.ca/

Csaba

----------- Start Original Message -----------
: Gentlemen,
: Excuse my ignorance, but what are the NRCan Rules.
: I have not heard of this one.
: Is this a Canadian Requirement?
: Thanks,
: Mark
: : : Thanks for the support Dave.
: : : Actually the correspondence programme is only a bit better than average...but the best equipped formal schools with loads of equipment/samples for practical training are in fact at the top of the failure rates. The lowest comes from a great organisation in eastern Ontario (where you got your training). But recall that "school" (if it cn be called a school) chooses the students. They also can easily get rid of those with a poor aptitute or poor attitude. I suppose if all the other schools got to select only the best to go for exams then the overall failure rates might drop.
: : : Ed
: : :
: : : : I have just finished reading the NRCan Rules and I would have to agree with Mr. Ed Ginzel that it does not stipulate that both practical and theory courses must be taken in order to qualify. If this was the meaning of the rule, than I am sure the total hours for both would have been stated. As it does not I am lead to believe that this rule indicates what Ed has stated that it can be a total of practical, a total of theory or a combination of both.
: : : : I would suggest that the NRCan look at the failure rates from all the training facilities up until the present. They may find that the lowest failure rate came from The Materials Research Institute which is a correspondence course. Not all of us are able to take time off work or travel to the various training facilities to take a course. The correspondence course is obviously a very important option to many of us. I would not like to see this option taken away from those of us that can not afford the time or the travel to a training center.
: : : : The correspondence course has worked for many years (check failure rates), so why is it no longer a viable option?
: : : : Thank you
: : : : Dave Stewart
: : As an interesting aside, gentleman, I was wondering if anyone was aware that there is an effective 'statue of limitations' on training according to NRCan? A colleague brought to my attention NRCan's current policy is that training hours obtained over 10 years ago would not qualify for current certification applications. At first light, I did not think that this was such a detriment, due to some of the changing technologies in some methods.
: : In addition, I felt that anyone obtaining course hours for a particular test method should be able to obtain the requisite experience time within the 10 year period in order to challenge the exams.
: : Unfortunately, for me, because of this rule, much of my training will not qualify to challenge the Level 3 certifications without further (considerable) classroom time. So having almost 25 years in the industry, 12 years as a level 2 in all methods, with regular refresher training (which apparently, doesn't count), I find myself having to spend another 5 to 6 thousand dollars, in addition to the NRCan fees, in order to satisfy the requirements in order to upgrade my certification.
: : Now i am going to say that I don't have a problem with this rule. My problem is that I have not seen any documentation or record regarding this policy change. Had this notification been made to all interested parties, I may have hastened the process in order to take advantage of the application of my previous training.
: : What do you all think of this?
: : Csaba
------------ 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|