Published on 03-Sep-2026
How Can Eddy Current Testing Boost Safety in High-Risk Industries?
NDT Talks Episode 6 — Three eddy current specialists on where ECT genuinely outperforms penetrant, magnetic particle and radiography, and where it should not be used at all.
Table of Contents
- Session Overview
- Meet the Panel
- Where Eddy Current Changed the Decision
- When ECT Is the Right Tool — and When It Is Not
- High-Speed and Composite Applications: Rail and Automated Fibre Placement
- Underwater Eddy Current: The Offshore Case Against MPI
- What Makes an Eddy Current Call Trustworthy
- Common Pitfalls: Probes, Lift-Off and Setup
- From Indication to Decision: Accept, Reject and the Politics
- Safety, Standards and the Role of the Level III
- Audience Question: Where to Learn Eddy Current Testing
- Key Takeaways
- Frequently Asked Questions
1. Session Overview
Eddy current testing sits in an odd position in the NDT toolbox. It is fast, it needs no couplant, it reads through paint and smeared metal, and it exposes nobody to radiation — and it is still routinely passed over in favour of penetrant testing, magnetic particle inspection or radiography. This session asked why, and where that choice is genuinely wrong.
The panel spanned aerospace and space vehicle inspection in the United States, oil and gas drilling and subsea structural work out of Dubai, and academic research on directional probes for rail and composite manufacturing. The applications discussed ran from a space vehicle returning from orbit to a deepwater offshore jacket brace.
NDT Talks Episode 6 — How Can Eddy Current Testing Boost Safety in High-Risk Industries:
2. Meet the Panel
3. Where Eddy Current Changed the Decision
The moderator opened by asking each panelist for a case where eddy current testing made a real difference. The answers arrived from three completely different corners of the industry.
Removing the Hazard, Not Just the Defect
Dr. Ingram's answer was not about a single catch. It was about what eddy current removes from the inspection process altogether.
Dr. Ronnie Ingram — Co-Owner, Paradigm for Excellence Professional Development & Workforce Training
“It costs so much because of hazardous materials when we have to strip parts. Not only is that dangerous, a lot of people end up getting skin diseases from using the high-powered strippers we use to take the paint off metals. And sometimes the paint will go so far that it removes protective coatings as well. Whenever you use ultrasound, nine out of ten times you have to strip the whole part, and even then setting up for ultrasound can be very complicated based on the various metals and their effects on sound. Whereas eddy current to me is a much simpler setup. It is safer, and it is actually faster, much faster.”
He tied that to a criticism he returned to through the session: inspection techniques get inherited rather than reconsidered. Level IIIs, in his view, are loaded with technical work and never get to the management side of the role — keeping up with equipment, revisiting techniques, replacing criteria that were set years ago and simply kept running.
An Out-of-Plane Wrinkle in an Aircraft Stiffener
Mr. Meirbek Mussatayev — Researcher, Civil Aviation Academy, Kazakhstan
“Being a curious student of material science, I once joined a colleague's session at our lab. It was focused on detecting out-of-plane wrinkles on L-stiffener corners — these are mostly used for aeroplane wings, to provide strength. That challenge really caught my attention and I could not sleep that night, honestly speaking. I was thinking how we can adapt our directional eddy current probe for this challenge. Because our receivers are wound in differential mode, we decided to place the two receivers across the corner to inspect the L-stiffener. That decision was crucial, because the results were striking. We could detect the wrinkles early, so it did not become a structural concern. These out-of-plane wrinkles reduce the compression strength by around 30%.”
Stress Corrosion Cracking in a Bottom Hole Assembly
Mr. Alexandar N Chi — NDT and Inspection Consultant and Founder, Probespection FZE; ASNT NDT Level III
“In the drilling industry, as you go closer to the drill bit there are special tools they call bottom hole assembly. Some of those tools are non-magnetic — austenitic and martensitic stainless steel. I had to do some work back in Qatar in 2014 or 2015. We were looking for stress corrosion cracks. Penetrant testing did not quite work the way they had hoped, so I had to step in. I was using a digital system, impedance plane display, absolute probe configuration, bridge-type probes, typical frequency 100 kHz to 150 kHz. Using that we were able to both find them and get some degree of quantification.”
The cracking was a cluster driven by a high sulphur, high temperature well at more than 3,000 metres. Penetrant testing was brought back afterwards, not as the primary method but to help size what eddy current had already located — the complementary pattern that ran through the whole session.
4. When ECT Is the Right Tool — and When It Is Not
Asked to give one case where he chose ECT over another method and one where he ruled it out, Dr. Ingram started with an application many outside aerospace do not associate with eddy current at all.
Dr. Ronnie Ingram — Co-Owner, Paradigm for Excellence Professional Development & Workforce Training
“A lot of people would be surprised at how many things we use ECT on. Did you know that whenever an aircraft has a lightning strike, you have to do a conductivity test on the material to see if it has lost its properties? I have seen cases where a lightning strike took a metal from one temper condition to another, which can mean it is too brittle to do its job. It is really amazing how well eddy current can measure the conductivity of a metal, and some people may not realise how important that is when you have a plane riding through the atmosphere.”
Reading Through Smeared Metal
Dr. Ronnie Ingram — Co-Owner, Paradigm for Excellence Professional Development & Workforce Training
“Whenever you grind a metal it actually smears the metal, and for it to be inspected you have to take an acid solution to clean it out. A lot of facilities do not like to use acid, so they do not have the capability. So you always ended up having to request permission to do eddy current, because eddy current will go right through the smeared metal. But to me, why don't you just make it an eddy current inspection to start with? We end up wasting a lot of time and effort getting approval to do something that is really simple.”
Why Cheaper Methods Win Anyway
His explanation for why penetrant remains so widespread was blunt: not because it is a quality inspection, but because it is usually the most affordable. The cost argument that once favoured it has largely expired — eddy current instruments are now broadly comparable in price to UT units, and considerably cheaper than radiography for equivalent quality.
He gave a current example from nuclear fuel manufacturing, where radiography verifies homogeneity of the metal encasing the uranium and eddy current is barely used at all. His argument for change was safety, speed and cleanliness — plus the point that a radiograph shot at slightly the wrong angle can miss the flaw entirely, which a contact scan does not.
Where He Would Not Use It
Dr. Ronnie Ingram — Co-Owner, Paradigm for Excellence Professional Development & Workforce Training
“The only place where I see we have had problems, where we could not do eddy current in spots where I felt we should, was because we did not have a lot of adapters and we did not have enough probes created the correct way to get in there. I definitely feel in the field we need to get more extension rods and things like that, which could increase our space to get into some tight places where a lot of people say, oh well, you cannot get in there, so we have got to do X-ray.”
Note the framing: his no-go case is not a physics limitation but a tooling inventory limitation, and it pushes work to radiography unnecessarily.
The Immersion UT Exception
A live exchange between the two Level IIIs produced the clearest no-go call of the session. Dr. Ingram asked whether eddy current could replace immersion ultrasonic testing on ferromagnetic aerospace parts up to an inch thick, scanned robotically in tanks before assembly. Mr. Chi's answer was unambiguous.
Mr. Alexandar N Chi — NDT and Inspection Consultant and Founder, Probespection FZE; ASNT NDT Level III
“In your case I think you want to stick to immersion UT, because if done to a proper procedure it is quite accurate and you already have the fixture in. If you are looking for both surface and subsurface clearly, immersion UT — already your dead zone is taken care of. Alternatively, AC will work for surface flaws, DC or half wave DC for both surface and subsurface flaws. But if you want to preserve the finish of the component, again immersion UT. Because the only option where you could find subsurface flaws would be prods — and the problem with that is you are going to have arcing on the surface of your test piece.”
Method Selection at a Glance
For a full breakdown of instrument types, probe configurations and what to look for when specifying a system, see our equipment guide.
→ Read: Eddy Current Testing Equipment: Types, Parts and How to Pick
5. High-Speed and Composite Applications: Rail and Automated Fibre Placement
Mr. Mussatayev's work sits in two applications where eddy current is not competing with other methods so much as reaching where they cannot.
Mr. Meirbek Mussatayev — Researcher, Civil Aviation Academy, Kazakhstan
“In rail inspection, when you are dealing with high speed, all of these train-based inspection systems can go up to 50 kilometres per hour. Ultrasonic inspection, used heavily in this direction, has limitations — it can only detect defects up to 4 mm in depth. Eddy current can do it at high speed with high accuracy and reliability, and we can also detect early cracks such as rolling contact fatigue.”
Mr. Meirbek Mussatayev — Researcher, Civil Aviation Academy, Kazakhstan
“Another application we are dealing with is automated fibre placement manufacturing. You are applying composite tapes with pressure from a roller, at around 40 to 60 degrees Celsius for the prepreg materials, and the speed normally goes below 1 metre per second. Currently used laser profilometry and thermography struggle, because they can only measure the top surface — and when you are not having a profile change, for example in-plane waviness does not change the profile, eddy current testing can do it better, because eddy currents tend to flow around the fibres. These are all unidirectional fibres, and when misalignment occurs eddy current does it better than profilometry.”
Why this matters beyond composites: both cases share a characteristic. The defect is real and consequential but leaves no surface signature, so any method that reads only the surface profile will pass it. Eddy current responds to the conductivity path itself, which is why it sees a wrinkle or a misalignment that a laser scanner reports as flat.
6. Underwater Eddy Current: The Offshore Case Against MPI
Mr. Chi's current speciality is underwater eddy current on high strength structural welds and T, K and Y joints, deployed by ROV using a custom system from a Swiss supplier, at scanning frequencies of roughly 216 to 250 kHz. As he noted, there is very little research into underwater probes and the accompanying impedance plane software, so the tooling is niche. The decision against magnetic particle inspection is not a technical preference, though — he was clear that MPI wins outright when conditions allow it.
Mr. Alexandar N Chi — NDT and Inspection Consultant and Founder, Probespection FZE; ASNT NDT Level III
“As you all know, the debate is between MPI versus electromagnetics. MPI is more physical. MPI always wins if it is ferromagnetic, and you can access the area clearly, and you have the time, and they can remove the paint. But in some instances getting the paint off is not quite easy, so you have to go for eddy current testing. Underwater MPI is quite expensive, because you have got to send a diver down there.”
Scanning Through Marine Growth
Mr. Alexandar N Chi — NDT and Inspection Consultant and Founder, Probespection FZE; ASNT NDT Level III
“Sometimes the marine growth can be so difficult that even at 3,000 or 3,500 PSI with a cavitation blast gun you still cannot get it off. So switching from a 10 mm unshielded bridge probe to a 40 mm probe — because we are looking at very large welds, minimum 2 in — you can have a very strong magnetic field even with more than 5 mm thick marine growth and with roughness as well. So you can still get good detectability, good discrimination, good resolution. Many times we have had to convince the client to go for eddy current — a bit more expensive, but overall cheaper if you look at the whole arrangement for underwater MPI or dry docking.”
Validation followed the same complementary pattern. Signals found underwater were confirmed by lifting the structure above water, blast cleaning to near machine finish, and running MPI — which in one case revealed a pinhole welding defect that had been detected under the marine growth.
7. What Makes an Eddy Current Call Trustworthy
Asked what gives them confidence to defend an eddy current call to leadership, the panel gave three different but compatible answers.
Dr. Ronnie Ingram — Co-Owner, Paradigm for Excellence Professional Development & Workforce Training
“It all comes back to the reference standard — can we find the defect we are looking for? Are we looking for longitudinal defects? Defects at an angle? Erosion on the face of a piece of metal? And then you have got to compare it against what you know is perfect. This is a perfect part, this we know is serviceable.”
Procedure First, Then Physics
Mr. Alexandar N Chi — NDT and Inspection Consultant and Founder, Probespection FZE; ASNT NDT Level III
“My approach is very simple. If the procedure is well crafted for the given application, or generic enough to be covered by ISO 17643, good to go. That is number one. Number two, and very crucially, the inspector. When I question the guy I go straight for the physics, because that is the mother ship. I show him a simple inductance equation. If he can recognise it, now we are starting somewhere. Then probes: what is the difference between an absolute probe, bridge probe, reflection probe, bridge differential and reflection differential? If he can tell me in common sense language, I know this guy has got good operating common sense. If these two things don't check, then whatever the results are I cannot rely on them.”
Mr. Alexandar N Chi — NDT and Inspection Consultant and Founder, Probespection FZE; ASNT NDT Level III
“If a guy does ten jobs over a six-month period for a given plant, and it is pretty much non-mag — so non-mag is pretty easy, mag is tricky with the permeability — and he is getting constantly no findings, literally, and the reports are not that clear, let me be polite and say not clear, because if you go to ISO 15549 the requirements in there are quite detailed. So if the reporting is sketchy and it is getting no findings at all, that is my first red flag right there.”
Cross Validation and Benchmark Samples
Mr. Meirbek Mussatayev — Researcher, Civil Aviation Academy, Kazakhstan
“Both things are crucial, of course — the procedure and the operator skills. But if the procedure is not in place, the good thing would be to follow some benchmark samples, benchmark samples which are validated by other types of NDT methods, so you can trust the results. Another thing is that cross validation is key. If you are receiving the eddy current results but they show some agreement with other tools such as ultrasonic or visual methods, it might be a good result to follow.”
The Reference Standard Shortage
Dr. Ronnie Ingram — Co-Owner, Paradigm for Excellence Professional Development & Workforce Training
“There is really a shortage of good reference standards in the field, probably all over the world. Even though we make a lot of electronic ones, trying to have a true replica is getting harder and harder. And when you look at the space industry, they are really hurting for standards.”
Mr. Chi added the offshore version of the same problem: real flawed samples are historically found mostly in training centres, and validating an underwater result against a physical reference means mobilising an expensive ROV to reach it. That constraint is exactly why he falls back on the inspector's grasp of the physics — he has met technicians with years of experience who cannot recognise the equation for inductance but know how to check a box, which he called pretty dangerous.
8. Common Pitfalls: Probes, Lift-Off and Setup
Asked for the top mistakes in eddy current testing, both Level IIIs went to the same answer immediately.
Dr. Ronnie Ingram — Co-Owner, Paradigm for Excellence Professional Development & Workforce Training
“Are you using absolute? Are you using differential? In a lot of cases where we probably should have used a differential, we are using absolute. The proper probe for the job — it is all about what are you looking for. And sometimes they do not even know what they are looking for. I do think the wrong probe is the root of a lot of the issues.”
Mr. Alexandar N Chi — NDT and Inspection Consultant and Founder, Probespection FZE; ASNT NDT Level III
“When it comes to probes, apart from configuration, there are now parameters such as shielded versus unshielded, edge effects and things like this. If you want to inspect ferritic materials, definitely unshielded. But the inspector is going to say, I am looking for small cracks, I need resolution. No — you need a good magnetic field, sufficiently strong to overcome the primary magnetic field, because it is about inductance. So you want to make sure your probe is unshielded, because the magnetic field is stronger. And the lift-off variable is well taken care of when you have an unshielded probe.”
The Standoff Lesson
Mr. Alexandar N Chi — NDT and Inspection Consultant and Founder, Probespection FZE; ASNT NDT Level III
“One of my classic rookie errors was using a 3D printed absolute probe with graphite housing, and I needed as much field as possible going to the part. So I took off the normal scotch tape standoff. It was a fairly smooth weld, but I learned the hard way. That graphite is kind of soft, and it wore off much faster and sent my signals left and right. It is pretty expensive to replace that stuff. So for me that was a lesson learned — always standoff, maintain it during calibration and during scanning, because the probes are expensive.”
One Variable at a Time
Mr. Mussatayev's pitfalls came from the research side and are equally applicable in the field. Juggling too many variables at once was his own early mistake — the discipline his supervisors taught him was to fix every parameter and move exactly one, so the change in signal is attributable. His second point was to know your defects: different defect types produce different signal shapes, and interpreting them depends on the mode being used, alongside edge effect, lift-off and the rest.
Probe and Setup Quick Reference
9. From Indication to Decision: Accept, Reject and the Politics
Mr. Alexandar N Chi — NDT and Inspection Consultant and Founder, Probespection FZE; ASNT NDT Level III
“Simple: the contract agreement. What are you after? In our case, cracks. Eddy current is mostly about cracks. Find it. Then if you can afford ACFM, size it, because ACFM does the sizing, especially underwater. So as long as it is a crack signal and can be proven as such, basically amplitude and phase correlation — and the contract says no cracks allowed — done. Pretty simple.”
Dr. Ingram's answer was less about criteria than about what happens once they are met.
Dr. Ronnie Ingram — Co-Owner, Paradigm for Excellence Professional Development & Workforce Training
“The two biggest fights I have ever had as far as eddy current goes — number one, I am not a proponent of tracking cracks. I say we find it, we fix it. If you found it and it is cracked, it is not going to go away. Number two is finding something they told you was not supposed to be there. I had some drag-out fights for that. Hey, what are you doing looking at that? I could not miss it, it is 4 in long, it is a crack. Well, that is not the inspection area.”
Mr. Chi pushed back from the operator's side, and the exchange is one of the more useful moments in the session because both positions are correct within their own constraints.
Mr. Alexandar N Chi — NDT and Inspection Consultant and Founder, Probespection FZE; ASNT NDT Level III
“In most cases offshore you have got to track it, because to stop that operation — you are looking at gas, that thing is sitting on a gas line. If they stop, you know what I am talking about. My last client, I sent a report giving recommendations after signals were found and proven, and they told me your job is to inspect and give the report, don't give recommendations.”
Dr. Ingram's counter: the liability does not follow the instruction. If something goes wrong later, the service provider is still where the investigation lands — which is why he treats the reporting record, not the client's verbal preference, as the thing that protects you.
Mr. Mussatayev's addition was procedural rather than political: lean on internationally recognised standards, which set out what gets recorded and who signs off, and make sure the inspection report itself carries probe settings, defect location and the decision rationale.
10. Safety, Standards and the Role of the Level III
The closing question asked each panelist for one thing to start, one to stop, and one metric to measure over the next twelve months.
Dr. Ronnie Ingram — Co-Owner, Paradigm for Excellence Professional Development & Workforce Training
“A lot of things should fall on the Level IIIs — always making sure everything is done safely and always trying to be a continuous improvement model. Not having the right probe can create issues, because if you are scanning an area and you are fully extended, believe me, my rotator cuff is about done from inspections like that. Another thing people do not understand about hiring a Level III is that you have got to make sure you have one who can communicate to people, because a lot of this stuff is over people's heads, or they think it is.”
An ergonomics point worth pausing on: probe availability is usually framed as a coverage issue. Dr. Ingram frames it as an injury issue — the wrong probe forces the technician into sustained awkward postures to maintain surface contact.
The Subsea Safety Case
Mr. Alexandar N Chi — NDT and Inspection Consultant and Founder, Probespection FZE; ASNT NDT Level III
“ROV systems come with a lot of cables and tether lines, and the amount of stuff involved is quite significant when you are doing more than 100 metres deep. There are two kinds: the highly manoeuvrable types where it is complete operator skill, and the semi-automated ones we call work class ROVs. From a safety perspective, the work class ROV comes with a lot more kit that makes the overall job safer. The smaller ROVs are cheaper on the contract, but they require a lot of manual labour.”
He was blunt about the hazard the cleaning equipment itself presents. At 1,500 to 3,500 PSI a blast gun can put a hole straight through a person, and he described an incident where a bypass valve was left semi-open and the operator's relay activated the water pump and the ROV thrusters together. The risk assessment, in his view, has to account for that class of failure explicitly rather than treating the ROV spread as a purely marine risk.
Procedures That Outlive You
Mr. Meirbek Mussatayev — Researcher, Civil Aviation Academy, Kazakhstan
“Start by putting some good procedures in place. This is particularly important for such experts like Alexandar or Ronnie, because we will leave this world but our procedures will help improve the repeatability of others' work. Stop rushing into measurements without a stable setup. And to measure, there should be some metric you can trust — for example signal to noise ratio, because if you are only measuring the signal, let's say the voltage, and trusting it, but your background noise from the non-defective part is also high, these kinds of things might be helpful.”
11. Audience Question: Where to Learn Eddy Current Testing
An audience member asked for recommended reading. Two titles were named: Fundamentals of Eddy Current Testing by Donald J. Hagemaier, which Mr. Chi recommended as the accessible starting point alongside ASNT preparation material for ISO 9712, and Nicola Bowler's Eddy Current Nondestructive Evaluation, which Mr. Mussatayev described as the classical reference from his first year. Mr. Chi's caveat was that most people are smart enough for the material and simply need to clear the physics barrier — basic calculus, algebra and the equations — after which it becomes a runaway train.
Dr. Ingram argued the network matters more than the reading list, and made the case with an account of an inspection that could not physically be performed.
Dr. Ronnie Ingram — Co-Owner, Paradigm for Excellence Professional Development & Workforce Training
“I was working with a major aircraft manufacturer and I had an inspection where we were measuring the windshield on a brand new passenger jet, and I could not get a reading. I tried everything. So I called three other plants and said, hey, can you go out there and see if you can get a reading on this windscreen? They said we tried it for an hour, we could not get a reading. I called four different places and nobody could get a reading. Ended up getting with engineering, and come to find out this was a special type of windshield and you could not get a signal on it. But the problem was, 30 of these inspections had been signed off.”
Dr. Ronnie Ingram — Co-Owner, Paradigm for Excellence Professional Development & Workforce Training
“So don't be afraid, if something is not working right, to call somebody and say, are you having this problem too? It is just the windscreen, but it is about integrity. You are signing your name to something you did not do.”
For a practical look at how ECT is applied in aircraft inspection and the certification behind it, see our aerospace case study.
→ Read: NDT Level III Aircraft Inspection Using Eddy Current Testing
12. Key Takeaways
- Eddy current's safety case is not only about finding flaws. It removes paint stripping, hazardous chemical handling and radiation exposure from the inspection process entirely.
- The most common reason ECT is not used is inherited procedure and cost habit, not technical unsuitability. Penetrant persists largely because it is cheap, and instrument cost parity with UT has largely closed.
- ECT reads through smeared metal after grinding, which penetrant cannot do without acid etching — a capability many facilities do not have.
- Conductivity measurement is an underused ECT application. Lightning strike damage assessment depends on it, and few outside aerospace associate it with the method.
- Underwater, ECT beats MPI on total cost because it removes the diver. Broad unshielded probes up to 40 mm maintain detectability through more than 5 mm of marine growth.
- ECT reaches applications other methods cannot: rail inspection at up to 50 km/h, and in-plane waviness in composite layup that leaves no surface profile change for a laser scanner to see.
- The clearest no-go was immersion UT for finish-critical ferromagnetic aerospace parts, where prods risk arcing on the test piece.
- Probe selection — absolute versus differential, shielded versus unshielded, diameter and standoff — was named the root of most ECT error by both Level IIIs.
- Confidence rests on three legs: a validated reference standard, a procedure crafted for the application or covered by ISO 17643, and an inspector who understands the physics rather than the button sequence. Consistent no-findings reports with thin reporting detail is a red flag, not a clean bill of health.
13. Frequently Asked Questions
What is eddy current testing?
Eddy current testing is an electromagnetic NDT method that induces circulating currents in a conductive material using an alternating current coil. Discontinuities, conductivity changes and permeability variations disturb those currents, and the resulting change in coil impedance is displayed on an impedance plane. It detects surface and near-surface flaws and measures conductivity and coating thickness, with no couplant, consumables or radiation source.
When should eddy current testing be used instead of penetrant or magnetic particle inspection?
Magnetic particle inspection generally wins on ferromagnetic material when the surface is accessible, the paint can be removed and there is time to do it. Eddy current becomes the better choice when paint or coating removal is impractical, when the surface has been ground and smeared, when acid etching is not available, when the component is non-magnetic, or when access conditions make a physical method expensive — underwater work being the clearest example.
Can eddy current testing be performed underwater?
Yes. Subsea inspection of structural welds and T, K and Y joints is performed using ROV-deployed probes with dedicated underwater systems, at scanning frequencies of roughly 216 to 250 kHz. The main practical advantage over underwater magnetic particle inspection is that it removes the need for a diver and tolerates marine growth that blast cleaning cannot fully remove.
What is the difference between absolute and differential eddy current probes?
An absolute probe measures coil response against a fixed reference, so it responds to gradual changes such as conductivity, thickness and lift-off as well as discrete flaws. A differential probe compares two coils, responding strongly to abrupt local changes such as cracks while suppressing gradual variation. The panel named using an absolute probe where a differential was appropriate as one of the most common field errors.
Should an eddy current probe be shielded or unshielded?
For ferritic material the panel's guidance was unshielded. The instinct is to reach for a shielded probe when looking for small cracks because it appears to offer better resolution, but on ferromagnetic material a sufficiently strong field is needed to overcome the primary magnetic field, and an unshielded probe delivers that. Lift-off variation is also better managed with an unshielded probe.
Which standards govern eddy current testing?
The standards referenced were ISO 15549 for general principles, ISO 15548 for equipment characteristics, and ISO 17643 for eddy current examination of welds by complex plane analysis, which superseded BS EN 1711. Personnel certification is typically under ISO 9712, ASNT or PCN. ISO 15549 in particular sets out detailed reporting requirements that the panel treats as the benchmark for judging report quality.
Where can I watch this NDT Talks session?
The full session is available on the OneStop NDT YouTube channel:
Ads
