Vision examination records that hold up when an auditor checks the date
An NDT vision examination record proves a technician passed near-vision acuity and color contrast tests on a stated date, using a stated chart or method, with or without correction, given by someone the written practice authorizes, and signed. The retest interval comes from your written practice and the governing document edition it adopts.
ASNT SNT-TC-1A and ANSI/ASNT CP-189 both call for two vision examinations. Near-distance acuity is tested on a Jaeger chart or an equivalent the governing document accepts, in natural or corrected vision. Color contrast differentiation tests whether the examinee can distinguish the colors or shades of gray used in the method, as the employer specifies. Neither result means much in an audit unless the record shows how the test was done and by whom. The retest interval is not a number to copy from a training handout: it comes from the employer's written practice, which follows a particular edition of SNT-TC-1A or CP-189, and a client specification can impose its own. Atlantis aligns the record form, the written practice clause and the due-date tracking so all three say the same thing, and reviews existing records for the gaps an auditor will find.
Source: ASNT SNT-TC-1A (2024, with Addendum), vision examination requirements; ANSI/ASNT CP-189 (2024); the employer's written practice; client specifications invoked by contract.
| Record field | What to write | Audit question it answers | Defect auditors find |
|---|---|---|---|
| Examinee | Full name and the identifier used in the certification file | Is this the person who signed the reports? | Initials or a nickname with no link to the file |
| Test type | Near-vision acuity and color contrast entered as separate results | Were both tests done, or only one? | A single pass box covering both |
| Chart or method | The acuity chart used, and the color contrast test with the colors or shades it covered | Was the test the one the written practice specifies? | Eye test OK, with no chart named |
| Conditions | Eye or eyes tested, distance as the chart designates, with or without correction | Did the technician pass under the conditions they work in? | Correction worn but not recorded |
| Result | The line or score achieved and pass or fail against the written practice criterion | Does the result meet the stated criterion? | Pass ticked, result left blank |
| Administered by | Name, role and the basis on which the written practice authorizes them | Was the examiner allowed to give the test? | A clinic stamp with no named examiner |
| Date and next due | Test date for each test, and the due date calculated from the written practice clause | Was the record current on every report date? | No due date, or one taken from an edition the programme does not follow |
| Review signature | Examiner signature, plus Level III or designee review where the written practice requires it | Did anyone check the record before filing? | Unsigned photocopy |
Two tests, two entries on the record
Near-vision acuity and color contrast differentiation test different abilities for different reasons. Acuity is about resolving fine detail at working distance: a hairline indication on a magnetic particle test, a small porosity image on a radiograph, a fine crack seen during visual testing. Color contrast is about telling one color or shade from another when an indication is defined by contrast with its background. A technician can pass one and fail the other, which is why the record needs two separate results rather than a single pass box.
Separate entries also matter because the two tests can fall due at different times. If the form records one combined date, the tracker can only calculate one due date, and one of the two tests will either be repeated needlessly or allowed to lapse unnoticed. Recording each test with its own date, method, result and next due date adds one line to the form and removes an entire class of audit finding.
The interval belongs to your written practice, not to a handout
Training material, wall charts and forum posts quote retest intervals as if they were universal. They are not. Under SNT-TC-1A the employer sets the interval in its written practice, guided by the edition of the recommended practice it adopts. CP-189 states its own requirement in mandatory terms. A client specification can impose something stricter for work on its assets. The interval that applies to a given technician on a given contract is the one the governing documents for that work produce, and it should be written down in exactly one place.
That place is the written practice. The vision record should carry a due date calculated from that clause, and the tracking system should read the same clause. When the written practice moves to a new edition of SNT-TC-1A, or a contract imposes a stricter requirement, due dates for every technician need recalculating on the day the change takes effect. Atlantis aligns the record form, the written practice wording and the tracker, so none of them can quietly disagree with the others.
Designing a color contrast test around the methods you certify
Because the requirement is tied to the colors or shades used in the method, the test should be designed around what technicians actually look at. For fluorescent magnetic particle and penetrant work, that is a bright indication against a dark background under UV-A light. For color contrast penetrant, it is red dye bleeding into white developer. For radiography, it is distinguishing densities or gray levels on film or a monitor. Visual testing can involve color cues such as heat tint or coating condition.
A written practice that specifies the color contrast test by method gives the examiner something concrete to administer and the auditor something concrete to check. Where a general color vision test is used instead, the written practice should say it is accepted and what result counts as a pass. Either route is defensible. What fails audits is a record that says only color vision normal, with nothing linking that statement to the methods the person signs reports in.
Who administers, and how to show they were allowed to
The written practice should name who may administer vision examinations. Some employers send technicians to an eye-care professional; others train a designee, often a Level II or the quality coordinator, to give the tests in-house under the Level III's oversight. Both work if the written practice says so and the governing document and client specification allow it. The record must name the actual examiner, not just the clinic or department, and carry their signature.
For an in-house designee, keep evidence of how they were trained to give the test, who authorized them and when. Keep the test materials under control too: a faded or photocopied acuity chart, or a chart used at the wrong distance or in poor light, changes the test. Auditors who know the subject ask to see the chart. When a clinic administers the test, ask for a report that names the chart used and states the result in the terms your written practice criterion uses, or record the equivalence yourself.
How auditors test vision records
An auditor rarely reads a vision record in isolation. They start from a report, find the technician, and check that both vision tests were current on the report date. Then they check that the record names a chart or method, that the examiner was authorized, that the result meets the written practice criterion, and that any correction used is recorded. For a recent hire, they ask where the record came from and whether the written practice allows a test given under a previous employer's programme to stand.
The second test is systemic: how does the company know a vision examination is due? A spreadsheet maintained by one person who is on leave, or a reminder set in a personal calendar, will be challenged. Auditors want to see due dates generated from the written practice clause, reviewed on a schedule and acted on before expiry. Our audit documentation packs include a vision-currency trace for every technician named in the pack.
Repairing missing, lapsed or borrowed records
When a record is missing or lapsed, the repair sequence matters more than speed. Retest the technician, under an authorized examiner, with a properly completed record. Then determine the exposure: which reports were signed while the record was out of date or absent. Raise a nonconformance under the quality system, assess whether any of those reports needs review, and notify the client where the contract requires it. Nothing should be backdated, re-signed or quietly replaced, because a reconstructed record that looks original is worse than an honest gap.
Borrowed records are a quieter version of the same problem. A new hire arrives with a vision report from a previous employer, and it goes straight into the file. Whether that is acceptable is a written practice decision, and the written practice should say how recent such a test must be and whether the test is repeated on hire. Without that clause, the borrowed record is evidence of someone else's programme, not yours.
What Atlantis delivers on vision records
The work covers four things: a vision record form with separate fields for each test, chart or method, correction, result, examiner and due date; written practice wording that states the tests, the criteria, the authorized examiners and the interval for the edition you follow; a short instruction for in-house designees; and a review of existing records against all three, with a list of technicians whose files need attention. The wording is reviewed by an ASNT NDT Level III and approved by whichever Level III your written practice names.
Vision records are a small document with a long reach, since every report a technician signs depends on them. If you want to know whether yours would survive a client audit, send us the written practice and a handful of personnel files. Request a quote for a vision record review and we will scope it to the size of your team.
What must an NDT vision examination record include?
The examinee's name and an identifier that matches the certification file, the two tests recorded separately, the chart or method used, whether correction was worn, the result against the written practice criterion, the date, the next due date, and the name and signature of the person who administered it. A clinic stamp with a pass tick answers none of those audit questions on its own.
How often must NDT vision examinations be repeated?
As often as your written practice says, and the written practice takes its interval from the edition of SNT-TC-1A or CP-189 it adopts, or from a client specification that is stricter. The two tests do not necessarily share an interval. Check the clause in your own written practice before setting due dates; we align the record and the tracker to that clause.
Who is allowed to give an NDT vision examination?
Whoever your written practice authorizes, within the limits of the governing document and any client specification. That can be an eye-care professional or a trained in-house designee. Either way the record should name the person and the file should hold the basis of their authorization, because an auditor who cannot see why the examiner was allowed to test will treat the result as unproven.
Can a technician pass the vision examination wearing glasses?
Yes. Near-vision acuity can be met with natural or corrected vision. The record must say which, and the written practice should require that any correction used to pass is worn while performing and interpreting examinations. A record that hides the correction leaves a technician signing reports under conditions nobody tested.
Is color contrast differentiation the same as a color blindness test?
Not necessarily. The requirement is the ability to distinguish the colors or shades of gray used in the methods the person is certified for, as the employer specifies. A general color vision test can serve if the written practice accepts it, but a method-specific test, such as reading red penetrant indications against white developer, is a legitimate route and is recorded as such.
What happens to reports signed after a vision record has lapsed?
They are exposed. Retest the technician first, then identify every report signed between the due date and the new test, and record the lapse as a nonconformance under your quality system. Whether the client must be told is set by the contract. Do not backdate or re-sign anything; an honest trail is the only version an auditor can accept.
Frequently asked questions
Can we accept a vision examination from a technician's previous employer?
Only if your written practice says you can and states the conditions, such as how recent the test must be and what the record must show. Without that clause, retest on hire. A previous employer's record shows their examiner and their criterion, which are not necessarily yours.
Does an optometrist's report satisfy the requirement?
It can, if it names the chart or test used and gives the result in terms your written practice criterion can be checked against. Eye-care reports often use a different notation, so record the equivalence on your own form and have the Level III or designee review it before filing.
Should vision results sit in the certification file or a medical file?
Keep the pass or fail result, the test, the examiner and the dates in the certification file, because auditors need them there. Keep any wider clinical detail separately, in line with the privacy rules where you operate. The certification file needs proof of fitness for the method, not a medical history.
Does a vision record need a Level III signature?
Only if your written practice requires one. Asking the Level III or a designee to review each record before it is filed catches missing fields early. Whatever the rule, write it down and follow it, because an auditor tests the file against the written practice, not against habit.
Can vision due dates be tracked in our training or ERP system?
Yes. Any system works if the due date is calculated from the written practice clause, the two tests are tracked separately and someone acts on the alert. The system is evidence of control only when its logic matches what the written practice says.