AMPP CIP Level 2 common mistakes
AMPP CIP Level 2 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Selecting the wrong abrasive-blast cleanliness standard - for example, specifying SSPC-SP 6/NACE No. 3 when the specification calls for SSPC-SP 10/NACE No. 2 near-white - or confusing the visual appearance limits of SP 5, SP 10, and SP 6.
The SSPC/NACE joint standards have similar names and the staining limits differ only subtly; candidates memorize the titles but not the percentage of tightly adherent residue each grade permits.
What to do instead
Build a comparison table pairing each SSPC grade with its NACE number and the permitted staining level, and practice against the visual comparators until the differences are automatic.
Evaluating dry film thickness using only the average of all gauge readings, ignoring the SSPC-PA 2 80/20 acceptance rule and the required 5-over-3 measurement pattern.
Candidates remember 'measure DFT' but not the statistical acceptance criteria, so they treat a simple arithmetic mean as the pass/fail decision.
What to do instead
Drill the rule explicitly: no single reading below 80% of the specified minimum, no reading above the specified maximum, and at least 80% of readings at or above the minimum, taken in the prescribed spot pattern.
Recording ambient air temperature as the substrate (steel) surface temperature when checking the dew point margin, or taking the reading in direct sunlight or on a freshly blasted surface without stabilization.
It is faster to read the air thermometer than to place a surface contact probe, and candidates do not appreciate how much steel temperature can differ from air temperature.
What to do instead
Always measure steel temperature with a contact-type thermometer at the actual work surface, read dew point from a sling or electronic psychrometer, and confirm the specified margin (commonly 3°C/5°F) before and during application.
Recommending an epoxy coating for a UV-exposed finish coat, or specifying an inorganic zinc-rich primer as a stand-alone finish in an atmospheric exposure.
Candidates learn generic 'epoxy = tough' and 'zinc = protective' labels without mapping each generic family to its service limitations such as chalking, embrittlement, or topcoat requirements.
What to do instead
Memorize a service-limitation matrix for each generic type: epoxies need a UV-stable topcoat, inorganic zinc requires a sealer/topcoat and proper cure, polyurethanes and polysiloxanes are the UV-stable finishes.
Treating pigment volume concentration (PVC) and volume solids as interchangeable, or assuming a high-PVC coating will be glossier and more durable than a low-PVC one.
Both are expressed as percentages, so candidates conflate a formulation ratio with the percentage of the wet film that becomes dry film, and they invert the PVC/CPVC performance relationship.
What to do instead
Study the PVC-versus-CPVC curve: below CPVC coatings are glossy and relatively impermeable; above CPVC they are flat, porous, and less protective; volume solids is a separate measure of what remains after solvent loss.
Submitting daily inspection reports that omit hold-point sign-offs, nonconformance entries, instrument serial numbers, or calibration dates, and that are not signed or dated.
Candidates treat the report as a narrative of activities rather than a traceable quality record, and they assume someone else will attach calibration and hold-point data.
What to do instead
Use a checklist for every report: date, location, weather readings, hold points witnessed and released, instrument ID and calibration due date, nonconformances raised and disposition, and inspector signature.
Assuming the inspector can approve a product substitution, relax a specified surface profile, or otherwise change the coating specification to suit field conditions.
Candidates blur the inspector's verification role with the specifier's or owner's authority and want to be helpful when the contractor is behind schedule.
What to do instead
Anchor the role: the inspector verifies conformance and reports deviations; any specification change must go through the owner/specifier and be documented as an approved revision before work proceeds.
Wearing only a particulate dust mask during abrasive blasting or during application of solvent-rich coatings instead of a supplied-air respirator.
Candidates focus on visible dust and underestimate silica exposure and solvent vapor, and they may not have memorized which tasks require atmosphere-supplying respirators.
What to do instead
Link the hazard to the respiratory protection class: abrasive blasting requires supplied air with a NIOSH-approved helmet, and solvent-rich spray application requires supplied air or the specified cartridge respirator with organic vapor protection per the SDS.
Choosing an airless spray tip and pump pressure by feel rather than checking the coating's recommended tip orifice, pressure ratio, and - for plural-component equipment - the pot life and flush procedure.
Candidates memorize equipment names but not the relationship between tip size, viscosity, and finish quality, and they overlook that plural-component mixed material has a finite working life.
What to do instead
Use the product data sheet to select tip orifice and pressure, verify the pump ratio matches the coating, and plan mixing, application, and flushing within the stated pot life.
Reporting or comparing surface profile in mils against a specification written in microns (or the reverse) without converting, or judging profile by eye instead of using replica tape or a comparator.
Profile units differ between documents and countries, and a visually 'rough' surface is easily mistaken for a measured one.
What to do instead
Convert consistently (1 mil = 25.4 µm) and measure profile with replica tape or a comparator against the specified grade, recording the method and the reading in the report.