Mark Chrisopherson wrote: > > Martin, > > There is a difference between a calibration lab providing NIST traceable > calibration and being A2LA OF NVLAP accredited. There are lots of > calibration labs that provide NIST traceable calibration who are not A2LA > or NVLAP accredited.
My point, is that NATA (your equivalent to A2LA or NVLAP) would not even think of accrediting a test house (EMC or cal or whatever) unless it's equipment showed traceability to our National Measurement Laboratory (CSIRO NML), either by direct calibration of the test gear by NML, or by a NATA registered cal lab that has such traceability. Your cal labs & test equip manufacturer's should have pulled their fingers out and got A2LA or NVLAP accreditation long ago. To be perocial, I don't know of a cal lab in Aust/NZ that isn't NATA registered, including HP Australia, and as NATA have a MRA with your accreditation bodies, and your reports are accepted by our regulators, I expect the same ground rules to be applied to NVLAP & A2LA test houses. Best Regards.
