What an NDT Level III Is Responsible for Before the First Scan Begins

Photo: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), public domain

What if someone in an NDT, inspection, quality control, quality assurance, asset integrity, or engineering setting says, “Level IIIs aren’t that important,” or “I’m not worried about what the Level III thinks”?

That should raise a question.

The issue is not whether a Level III should win every disagreement. Management, engineering, quality, and operations each have their own responsibilities. The concern is what that mentality can mean for the technical controls behind the NDT work.

A Level III is not there simply to sign procedures or answer questions when a technician gets into trouble. The role reaches into personnel qualification, procedure and technique development, interpretation of applicable requirements, selection of methods and techniques, and technical oversight of NDT operations.

When that function is weak or routinely bypassed, the work may continue, but some of the controls that make the results defensible can begin to disappear.

When the Job Does Not Match the Plan

This is often where the value of an experienced Level III becomes obvious.

Consider an Eddy Current Testing application involving fastener holes. The technique was developed around a specific rotating probe, test frequency, reference standard, and calibration response. In the field, the technician discovers that the specified probe does not fit a group of holes correctly. Another probe is available, fits well, and produces a clean response on the instrument.

It is tempting to substitute the probe and continue.

An experienced ET Level III should immediately want to know more.

What is different about the replacement probe? Does it use the same coil configuration? Is its operating frequency range comparable? How does its response compare on the applicable reference standard? Does the difference in probe diameter affect centering or sensitivity? If the frequency, gain, phase rotation, or calibration response has to change, are we still performing the technique that was originally established?

The issue is not whether the replacement probe produces a signal. It may do so.

The issue is whether it retains the capability needed for the test.

That is a technical decision. It is also a good example of why Level III oversight cannot be replaced by simply telling a capable technician to make it work.

Good Looking Data Can Still Be Wrong

One of the uncomfortable realities of NDT is that poor data does not always look poor.

A rotating ET signal can be clean and repeatable while the setup has lost sensitivity to the condition of interest. A UT calibration can be repeatable while the selected sound path does not adequately interrogate the target volume. A technician can follow every step on a technique sheet and still encounter a component condition that was never considered when the technique was developed.

The instrument does not know that.

It displays the response it receives.

The technical question is whether that response means what we think it means.

That is why procedure approval, technique development, reference standards, calibration requirements, personnel qualification, and technical review are connected. Together, they establish the basis for trusting the result.

When the Level III function is bypassed, those decisions still get made. They may simply be made informally by someone who does not have responsibility for, or sufficient knowledge of, the technical consequences.

A Program Can Look Functional While Losing Control

An NDT program does not have to stop operating to have a serious problem.

Technicians can continue working. Calibrations can be completed. Reports can be issued. Jobs can close.

The weakness may not become apparent until somebody asks harder questions.

Why was this technician qualified to perform this work?

Why was this technique appropriate for this application?

Who approved this change?

Was the reference standard applicable?

What demonstrated the required sensitivity?

Was this limitation known when the result was reported?

If those questions cannot be answered, the problem is no longer confined to one test result. The organization has lost part of the traceable technical basis for its NDT process.

That matters to management because the consequences can extend beyond the NDT department. They may include repeat testing, rejected reports, audit findings, customer disputes, schedule impacts, engineering decisions based on questionable data, and uncertainty about the condition of the asset or component.

The Level III Certification is Not Enough

There is another side to this discussion.

Organizations should expect something substantial from the person exercising Level III authority.

Certification alone does not make someone an effective technical leader. The position requires integrity, technical knowledge, practical experience, and a can-do attitude.

Integrity

There will be times when the technically correct answer is inconvenient.

A technique may need additional work. A qualification may not support the assigned task. The available data may not justify the conclusion everyone wants. Additional testing may be necessary.

A Level III has to be willing to say so.

Integrity also means not approving work that the Level III does not adequately understand.

A Level III signature should represent technical review and technical judgment. It should never be an administrative formality.

Technical Knowledge

A Level III needs to understand the method beyond the wording in a procedure.

For Ultrasonic Testing, that means understanding how frequency, angle, aperture, wedge selection, sound path, material properties, geometry, calibration, discontinuity orientation, and other variables affect the test.

For Eddy Current Testing, it means understanding frequency response, conductivity, permeability, lift-off, probe design, geometry, phase behavior, penetration, reference-standard response, and other variables affect the test.

The Level III also needs to understand the governing requirements well enough to recognize what can be changed, what cannot, and when a procedure or technique needs to be revised.

Knowing where the requirement is written is useful.

Understanding what that requirement means when the technician puts the probe on the component is more important.

Practical Experience

Technical knowledge without practical experience leaves a significant gap.

Someone can understand ET theory and still fail to anticipate what happens when a rotating probe does not center properly in an actual fastener hole.

Someone can understand ultrasonic beam theory and still develop a technique that is difficult or impossible to execute consistently on the component.

Surface condition, geometry, probe handling, calibration, material response, equipment behavior, and actual field conditions all affect how a technique performs.

Those lessons are difficult to learn from a procedure alone.

Practical experience gives context to technical knowledge. It allows the Level III to recognize the difference between a technique that works on paper and one that can actually produce reliable results in the field.

Without that practical understanding, Level III approval can become little more than a signature.

The Level III Should Help Solve the Problem

Protecting technical integrity does not mean becoming an obstacle.

A strong Level III should be difficult to pressure into a poor technical decision, but easy to approach with a technical problem.

When the original plan does not work, the discussion should not end with, “No, you can’t do that.”

The next question should be, “What can we do?”

Can the alternate ET probe be qualified for the application?

Can another frequency or probe configuration provide the required response?

Does the technique need to be revised?

Would another NDT method provide information the original method cannot?

Is additional access necessary?

If the limitation cannot be eliminated, can it be clearly defined so the people using the results understand exactly what was and was not accomplished?

That is the can-do part of the Level III role.

It does not mean finding a way to approve everything. It means using knowledge and practical experience to find a technically defensible path forward when one exists.

What Management Should Expect

Management should not have to choose between getting the job done and maintaining technical control.

A capable Level III should help accomplish both.

Management should expect the Level III to identify technical risk clearly, explain why it matters, distinguish requirements from preferences, and offer practical alternatives when the original approach is not workable.

The Level III should also be able to explain a technical concern without falling back on “because I said so.”

That is not technical leadership.

If there is a qualification issue, procedure conflict, technique limitation, calibration problem, or unsupported conclusion, the Level III should be able to explain the problem, describe its potential effect on the result, and identify the available options.

In return, the Level III function has to be given enough authority to mean something.

If a technical concern can simply be bypassed when it becomes inconvenient, the organization has not eliminated the problem. It has accepted the associated risk without resolving the technical issue.

That is the real concern behind the statement, “I’m not worried about what the Level III thinks.”

The Bottom Line

The important question is not whether management agrees with the Level III.

It is whether the technical basis of the NDT work remains intact after the decision is made.

A strong Level III brings integrity, technical knowledge, practical experience, and a willingness to solve problems. Those qualities make the Level III more than an approval authority. They make the role an important technical resource for management, engineering, quality, asset integrity, and the technicians performing the work.

At Focaltek Inspection LLC, Level III support is built around that responsibility: understanding the method, understanding the application, understanding the governing requirements, and helping the team find a workable solution without compromising the validity of the test.