NVLAP has revised its method of assessing EMC labs in order to harmonica-ize the process so that everyone is playing the same tune. It turns out that the way to cover your derriere in this litigious world is to assess only stuff that is in print and can be dragged into court before a judge when an incompetent lab that was denied accreditation sues for damages.

Thus, you don’t try to figure out if the equipment was properly calibrated since this is an undocumented technical opinion of the assessor or the equipment user. What you worry about is whether the calibration lab put their logo on the certificate in the right place and used the right color ink on the stamp pad. More importantly, did some flunky sign the calibration certificate so that if the fit hits the shan there is a scapegoat. Of course, the cal lab must be accredited which means it has certificates with logos in the right place, in the proper color and signed by some other flunky. But again no one mentions competence since that’s a technical opinion and open to argument.

There is, of course, one nearly absolute – the spec. For example, if some receiver company gets a few partisans on the spec-writing committee, they can demand that any EMI measurement equipment must have a repulsive bandwidth of, say, 1MHz. Most labs were already using a piece of equipment which yields a result different from but just as good as a band-limited receiver with rf-tuned circuits. Because this equipment has baseband detection, it has no bandwidth, never mind a repulsive bandwidth. That doesn’t matter, every lab has to buy a receiver and pay big bucks to get the shaft.

Interestingly enough there is a definitive but irrelevant – according to the spec – method of evaluating lab technical personnel. For 25 years NARTE has been been certifying EMC technicians and engineers. Here is a disinterested group with a definitive set of examinations which assess the knowledge of technical personnel. They also issue certificates with logos, signatures – the whole nine yards. It’s hard to figure out why NARTE certification doesn’t count for much when it comes to EMC laboratory accreditations. According to the spec, you have to have a training program, a set of defined hurdles and people signing off on technical competence. NARTE does all that.

EMC lab management should be in favor of NARTE certification in lieu of the usual program since it would be cheaper and more effective for the lab. Also, it is much less liable to be compromised by cronyism.

EMC technicians and engineers should be all for NARTE accreditation too since it is an internationaly known disinterested organization that issues an official at-a-boy that goes with them to a new job. It was really sad a few years ago, when all EMC labs were tightening their belts and more than a few were closing their doors, to see competent laid-off EMC technicians and engineers trying to get new jobs but having no recognized authority that vouched for their competence.

Perhaps some specified constraints should be put on the spec writers. There should be some kind of clause in SISSYBAR 16-1 (the spec on spec writers) that there be no conflict of interest that puts the spec writer in a position to make money from any requirement in the spec. Second, why not require proof of technical competence in the equipment, techniques and problems covered by the spec? And third, the spec writer must not be a stooge for any one government or international organization and not set standards that are de facto constraints of trade.