>I find it incredible that you have A2LA (or NVLAP) registration without >already having had your equipment calibrated by a NIST or similar >calibration facility. If a test equipment manufacturer's "wet finger" >cal report is good enough, I'd have to question the integrity of any >test report when making a statement of compliance, particularly when the >measurement goes close to the limit, or when a tight measurement >uncertainty is quoted.
>It shows the disparity between accredited labs. Traceable cal reports >are a pre-requisite for NATA registration, and as a NATA lab, we've had >to shell out 10's of $1000,'s over the years for National Standard >traceable calibration reports, with cal intervals no more than 12 >months. >The bottom line is cost & competitiveness. How can an accredited lab >compete equally with another without the same accreditation >requirements, particularly as we are currently drunk with the "spirit" >of mutual recognition between lab accreditation bodies. How level is the >playing field ? I think a clarification is necessary here. I was requesting any information on A2LA or NVLAP accredited calibration labs, NOT NIST traceable labs. Of course I use NIST traceable calibrations! Just because a lab is NIST traceable does not mean it is A2LA or NVLAP accredited. NIST traceability is only a part of being accredited. Our EMC lab is pursuing acreditation at the current time. As a part of that, both A2LA and NVLAP are moving towards requiring the use of accredited calibration labs. Because of this, we are searching for any ACCREDITED calibration labs.
