Skip to main content

Reply to "Why do we post-calibrate?"

Interesting discussion, I've been reticent to pipe up while I pondered whether my reaction was just an unreasonable attachment to how we've done it over many years. I still don't know, but I still favor post- as well as pre-calibration. My thoughts:
-- not every measurer will be able to reason these things through as Duane suggests
-- as a certifier, seeing the post-calibration gives me an additional look at the measurer's consistency, and sometimes thought process, to see how they treat the post-cal numbers
-- also, as a certifier, I've come across quite a few submissions where the measurer made fairly minor mistakes, resulting in a course that is technically short according to their working constant. If I see the post-cal results I can consider the measurement results using the average constant, and avoid sending the measurer out on another long drive to make a small adjustment.
-- as a measurer, I prefer to use the average constant in most cases, and along with that I nearly always use the "SSS", or sum of shortest splits, method to analyze results. I feel this is a good way to have a solid course that is not short and has a minimal amount of "cushion". (I don't encourage newer measurers to use the average constant, but having the information needed to find the average constant can always be helpful.)

I also agree with Mark's reason. And I definitely favor the "temporary unofficial calibration course" as Duane has explained. I've had enough "unfortunate" post-cal results (and yes, have gone back to fix courses) that I vote for anything to avoid having to "re-do".

My two cents
×
×
×
×