I was quite interested to read in the October 2005 issue of Measurement News that there is a proposed admendment to the the organizational structure of the certification system in the US. Canada's current certification system used the RRTC as a model when it was restructured in 1999. The certification process works now, and the number of courses certified annually has more than quadrupled: from less than 15 annually in all years prior to 1999 to more than 60 in both 2004 and 2005. Without an experienced measurer at the helm, we wouldn't have a system for certification that works.
We do share some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Lucas in his amendment, namely:
- Many courses are not certified. Some regions haven't a single certified course.
- Some regions lack experienced measurers, and someone has to be brought in to perform validations, often at considerable expense.
- There are simply not enough measurers for all the courses that need to measured.
National and provincial/state sport governing bodies should have an interest in training measurers in their area. Ideally, the local sport-governing should have the contacts and resources to find suitable candidates, organize a measurement seminar and bring in a measurer to teach it, if necessary. Course measurement is time-consuming and appeals to a small number of people due to the skills involved; simply putting on seminars doesn't guarantee that measurers will populate the Earth.
Certification should be left to the experts. How can a region/province/state have a certifier before it has an experienced measurer?
Original Post
