John:
Get real!
Dave George
----------
>From: John Fessler
>To: EMC-PSTC
>Cc: Martin Garwood
>Subject: Re: Accredited Calibration Labs
>Date: Wednesday, April 02, 1997 1:57PM
>
>
>From: John Fessler
>To: EMC-PSTC
>Cc: Martin Garwood
>Subject: Re: Accredited Calibration Labs
>Date: 1997-04-02 13:57
>Priority: 3
>Message ID: 8093B07B59ABD01195CA008029E127AA
>Received: from bbmail1.unisys.com by ea_ihx101.ea.unisys.com with SMTP
>(Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63)
> id HRXM5BLY; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:17:30 -0000
>Received: from ruebert.ieee.org (ruebert.ieee.org [199.172.136.3]) by
>bbmail1.unisys.com (8.8.5/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA25812; Wed, 2 Apr 1997
>16:15:13 GMT
>Received: (from daemon@localhost) by ruebert.ieee.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id
>JAA29835 for emc-pstc-list; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 09:00:59 -0500 (EST)
>Message-Id: <[email protected]>
>To: EMC-PSTC <[email protected]>
>Cc: Martin Garwood <[email protected]>
>From: John Fessler <[email protected]>
>Date: 2 Apr 97 8:57:56 EST
>Subject: Re: Accredited Calibration Labs
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: Text/Plain
>Sender: [email protected]
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: John Fessler <[email protected]>
>X-Resent-To: Multiple Recipients <[email protected]>
>X-Listname: emc-pstc
>X-List-Description: Product Safety Tech. Committee, EMC Society
>X-Info: Help requests to [email protected]
>X-Info: [Un]Subscribe requests to [email protected]
>X-Moderator-Address: [email protected]
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
>>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.
>
