Sounds like the discussions in Honolulu missed the major advantages of the pressure-monitoring method. It is true that there is increased efficiency by not having to carry out a postcalibration and course adjustment, but these are not the major advantages of the method.
The postcalibration method does not usually correct for temperature effects and in many cases is counter productive. With the pressure-monitoring method, the calibration factor at any instant is known accurately by a simple reading of the pressure gauge, and results are therefore more accurate.
However I think the major advantage concerns the calibration course. Once a measurer sets up an ideal calibration course near his home, there is never the need to set up one anywhere else.
I continue to be amazed at the ruggedness of the method, and have certified about 75 courses in the last three years using the same gauge without a single failure.