Caution is a good thing. When the measurement procedure was set up, we exercised caution by requiring two measurements with the lesser length used, and we required the addition of the 1.001 SCPF.
No consideration was given at the time to the time elapsed between measurement and application for certification.
Over the years validations have shown a “pass” rate of about 90 percent for the less experienced, and 98 to 99 percent for highly experienced folks. There is not much room left for improvement. We are already close to the point of diminishing returns. In other words, we could double the work required and gain only a little improvement in the “pass” rate.
The proposal’s main rationale, as best I can tell, is a belief that old measurements are less credible than new ones, and that extra caution must be exercised.
Some worry that old measurements may be invalid, because the course may have changed. It’s true, it may have changed, but the guy who measured it originally says it has not. Who would know better?
I have no problem with the ten year expiration. Too many questionable applications for renewal were being received. However, I believe if the original measurer has observed the course and seen no changes, he should be able to use that original data to obtain a new certificate with a new submission of the old data. This would not be a renewal, as a new, up to date, map would be needed to cover any changes in split descriptions. In practice I don’t think this will happen often, and I don’t see it as a problem. I suspect the main beneficiaries will be calibration courses.
My position is that the new policy is unnecessary and should be withdrawn. I see it as bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo with no clearly defined benefit.
The safeguards we originally put in place provide enough caution.