Question 1. What technical procedure is more voluminous - verification or calibration?

Surprisingly, there is no single answer to this question, since any answer will be correct. Namely:

The technical content of the calibration procedure can fully correspond to the technical content of the calibration, if the customer of the calibration works is satisfied with the verification methodology and is not interested in the actual values \u200b\u200bof metrological characteristics, but is only interested in the answer to the question “does the measuring instrument correspond to the passport data”, in other words, “is the device suitable or unfit".

The technical content of the calibration procedure can be much smaller than the verification procedure if the customer is interested in the characteristics of the measuring instrument in a narrow range, in a specific mode, etc., while in the process of verification studies are carried out on a larger scale.

Finally, calibration can be much larger than verification if the customer is interested in the characteristics of the measuring instrument that are not covered by the verification procedure. This may relate to the operation of the measuring instrument in non-standard conditions, determining the metrological reliability of the measuring instrument, a detailed review of the uncertainty budget, etc. Calibration may turn out to be a whole scientific research work worthy of a thesis for a degree.

Question 2. List all the differences of verification and calibration.

First difference   - This is an object that is subject to either verification or calibration. Calibration is subject to measuring instruments that are used outside the scope of state regulation in the field of ensuring the uniformity of measurements, and verification - measuring instruments that are used in the sphere of state regulation in the field of ensuring the uniformity of measurements.

Second difference - this is the entity that performs the work: verification can only be performed by a legal entity accredited in the national accreditation system (individual entrepreneur); calibration can be performed, roughly speaking, by anyone. To carry out calibration work, no one needs to receive any permission (license, accreditation, etc.).

Third difference   - work execution procedure. During verification, this procedure is governed by a document called the verification procedure. This can be an interstate standard (GOST 8. ...), a national standard (GOST R 8. ...), a methodology developed by the state scientific metrological institute and recorded in the information database (MI ...), a section describing the type or operational documentation submitted by the developer of the measuring instrument for passing the test procedure for type approval. In other words, the verifier does not have any “freedom of creativity” in choosing the verification methodology and in making any changes to it. Verification must be protected from any subjective influences.

The developer of the calibration methodology can be the developer of the measuring instrument, the calibrator, the user of the measuring instrument, the customer of the calibration work. During calibration, a subject appears that does not exist and cannot exist when calibrating measuring instruments; this subject is a CLIENT, a customer of calibration works. The calibration procedure should satisfy its requirements, should allow finding answers to questions related to the measuring instrument that are of interest to the customer.

Fourth differenceinherent in the definitions of these concepts - the results of the work. In the case of verification, this determination of compliance with the established requirements; in the case of calibration, these are the actual values \u200b\u200bof the metrological characteristics of the calibrated measuring instrument.

Fifth difference - This is a document that is issued based on the results of work. During verification, this is a verification certificate, during calibration it is a calibration certificate. The main difference, of course, is not in the name, but in the fact that the Verification Certificate states "valid until ...", and this phrase does not and should not be in the Calibration Certificate. The presence of the entry “valid until ...” should mean that the verifier, performing the state function of verification and establishing that the measuring instrument “meets the established requirements”, ensures that under the correct operating conditions of the measuring instrument, it will retain this property until the specified date (whether this is so, will remain on the conscience of the faithful and those who set the interval between verification).

The calibration certificate, fixing the actual values \u200b\u200bof the metrological characteristics of the calibrated measuring instrument at the time of calibration under certain conditions, does not have a validity period, because this information will not change after any time. If the customer of calibration works is tasked with determining the metrological reliability of the measuring instrument, then, performing this task, the calibrator can indicate in the Certificate of Calibration the recommended period for recalibration, based on his own experimental studies, information on the interval between calibrations of similar measuring instruments or setting himself the task obtaining statistical data to determine metrological reliability under specific operating conditions.

Sixth difference - This is the notorious contrast of "error" and "uncertainty." Allegedly, during verification, the correspondence of the error of the measuring instrument to the requirements established in the passport or in the type description is determined, and during calibration it is imperative to determine the uncertainty ... why? Now everything is so clear and definite. If we are talking about the uncertainty of the measurement result obtained using this measuring instrument, then by no means in all cases the uncertainty of the measurement result depends only on the measuring instrument. There are many factors, the influence of which is limited by the requirements of the measurement procedure, and finally, the different effects of the measurement objects should be taken into account. That is, the measurement result obtained in comparison with the value of the standard is characterized, in my opinion, by the error of the measuring instrument rather than the uncertainty of the measurement result. By the way, GOST ISO / IEC 17025 itself speaks of the uncertainty of “calibration results”, that is, what we used to call the “error of error determination”. Also an important parameter of the calibration procedure, which determines the amount of experimental research carried out during the calibration process. Nevertheless, be that as it may, I am generally accepted at the moment it is believed that as a result of calibration should be estimated "uncertainty", apparently measurements.

Question 3. Can calibration always replace calibration?

The answer to this question is already laid down in the answers to previous questions. Lack of information about the actual values \u200b\u200bof the metrological characteristics of the measuring instrument can significantly reduce confidence in the measurement result, and in some cases this can be critical. The calibration procedure can be adapted to the specific measurement tasks that the user places the measuring instrument in front of the measuring instrument, and the calibration procedure is established once and for all.

Question 4. Can calibration be performed using a verification procedure?

It would seem, from the logic of all the previous answers, the answer is obvious: if the user of the measuring instrument needs to know whether the measuring instrument meets the requirements set for this type of measuring instrument, then, of course, the calibration should be done according to the verification method. Moreover, if in the future it is assumed that the calibration results should serve as the basis for the issuance of a verification certificate.

The second argument is the practice of the last 22 years: in the Law of the Russian Federation “On ensuring the uniformity of measurements” the concept of “calibration” appeared, which completely coincided with the concept of “departmental verification” and the only difference was that calibration was outside the scope of state metrological control and supervision . In most cases, in enterprises this attitude to calibration was quite satisfactory and is now satisfactory. This situation does not suit and should not suit science, innovative technologies, measurements, on the basis of which decisions associated with great risk can be made. But the percentage of such measurements in relation to all measurements is very low. Therefore, the tendency now to “prohibit” calibration using calibration methods, which is absolutely pointless and harmful, in our opinion. Forcing enterprises to retype verification procedures, replacing the word “verification” with “calibration” and “error” with “uncertainty”, this means delivering another blow, moreover
“In the back”, to metrologists at enterprises that are already in a constant struggle for existence.

Question 5. Who can be the developer of the calibration procedure?

Here it is necessary to recall the “new testament” of calibrators - GOST ISO / IEC 17025-2009 “General requirements for testing and calibration laboratories”, according to which the developer or manufacturer of the measuring instrument, calibrator, customer of calibration work, and finally, a third-party competent person, which the abovementioned persons could handle with this task, may be developers of a calibration technique. The main condition is that the customer of the calibration should be notified by what method the calibration will be carried out, and in some cases, must coordinate it. It should be borne in mind that in the presence of different calibration methods, the calibration results may not coincide, which can lead to conflict situations. It is better not to allow such cases, but to follow the principle: one group (type) of measuring instruments - one calibration procedure.

Question 6. Is there any connection and dependence between the calibration of measuring instruments and testing for type approval, certification of measurement procedures, verification of measuring instruments?

Direct connection and direct dependence. What is a test of measuring instruments for the purpose of confirming the type as not determining the actual values \u200b\u200bof the metrological characteristics of the measuring instrument for various values \u200b\u200bof the influencing factors? That is, repeated calibration of the measuring instrument with varying calibration conditions. How to determine the error of the measurement procedure, if you do not select the error of the measuring instrument from it? That is, do not calibrate the measuring instrument? How to determine if a measuring instrument meets the established requirements, if you do not determine the actual values \u200b\u200bof its metrological characteristics? In other words, the basis of any type of metrological control is the calibration of measuring instruments.

Question 7. For what purpose are national calibration services created?

Everyone knows that measurement is a type of activity that requires time, qualified personnel, expensive equipment, but at the same time, as a rule, it does not increase the quantity of manufactured products, but rather increases its cost. Therefore, manufacturers are always faced with the task of minimizing measurement procedures, especially repeated and duplicate ones. Such procedures include the incoming inspection of raw materials, semi-finished products, components, provided that they have passed the exit control at the supplier. In order not to carry out incoming control, one must trust the results of someone else's output control. So there was a need for a third, independent, competent person who, firstly, establishes general rules for carrying out activities for the calibration of measuring instruments, and, secondly, assesses and confirms competence in carrying out these works. To this end, national calibration services were created to ensure mutual trust in the measurement results, and, consequently, in the results of calibration of measuring instruments, which manufacturers and consumers of any product, sellers and buyers of goods were interested in. In other words, subjects who may have opposing interests from the point of view of measurement results. And it is precisely the general requirements and the existence of an “arbitration”, independent judge that ensures confidence in the results of their activities.

From this point of view, it becomes clear why any departmental (industry) calibration systems do not fulfill the task. At best, they solve the problem of unifying the activities of calibrating measuring instruments and ensuring trust "inside" the department. But not outside of it. The interests of the consumer, the activities of this department may not only not be taken into account, but may be infringed.

Question 8. When and in connection with what was the Russian calibration system created?

In the Law of the Russian Federation “On ensuring the uniformity of measurements” No. 4871-1 dated April 27, 1993, the article “Calibration of measuring instruments” appeared, where it was said that measuring instruments not subject to verification “can be calibrated upon release from production or repair, upon import by import, during operation, rental and sale. ” The next paragraph of this article said: “On the basis of contracts concluded with state scientific metrological centers   or bodies of the State metrological service, interested metrological services of legal entities can be accredited for the right to carry out calibration work. In these cases, accredited metrological services of legal entities are given the right to issue calibration certificates on behalf of the bodies and organizations that accredited them. ”

Within the framework of this article of the Law, VNIIMS developed PR 50.2.016 “GSI. Requirements for performing calibration work ”, PR 50.2.017“ GSI. Regulation on the Russian calibration system ”, PR 50.2.018“ GSI. The accreditation procedure of metrological services of legal entities for the right to carry out calibration works ”, which was approved by the State Standard, and then they were registered with the Ministry of Justice of Russia and became normative legal acts. So in the Russian calibration system more than a hundred equal accrediting bodies appeared, coordinated by VNIIMS. That was until 2007, before the entry into force of GOST R ISO / IEC 17025-2006 “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories”, which stated that there should be only one body confirming that the calibration laboratory meets the established requirements. And these functions, at that moment and to the present, have been taken over by VNIIMS, since its main task, based on its name, is the organization of the activities of the metrological services of legal entities.

Question 9. What is the main purpose of the functioning of the Russian calibration system at the moment?

The Russian calibration system is a set of voluntarily united legal entities and individual entrepreneurs whose activities in the organization and implementation of calibration work are aimed at ensuring the uniformity of measurements in the country outside the scope of state regulation of ensuring the uniformity of measurements and is carried out in accordance with uniform requirements harmonized with international requirements and standards .

The main purpose of the operation of the DGC is to create conditions for the international recognition of calibration results and to ensure confidence in the quality of calibration work on the part of clients and partners of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs registered in the DGC and performing calibration activities in accordance with uniform requirements, harmonized with international requirements and standards .

Question 10. Is the activity of the Russian calibration system a duplication of the activities of the Federal Accreditation Agency for accreditation of technical competence in performing calibration work? The activities of the Russian calibration system in no way duplicate the activities of the Federal Accreditation Agency for accreditation of technical competence in performing calibration work. The main task of Rosaccreditation is to verify that the calibration laboratory meets the accreditation criteria, the main task of the RSK is to help meet the requirements of the RSK and GOST ISO / IEC 17025. Experts of accreditation bodies in accordance with international rules do not have the right to consult accredited laboratories, they must be morally and materially independent of the subject of accreditation (indifferent to it). RSK experts use all their knowledge and experience to provide maximum assistance to calibration laboratories in organizing their calibration activities in order to achieve compliance with the requirements established in the RSK and GOST ISO / IEC 17025. Moreover, this is done not only during the assessment and confirmation of competency procedure, but also throughout the duration of the registration certificate in the RSK.

Maintenance of metering devices implies a planned preventive, which is usually carried out 1 time every six months. During the test, the performance of the counting mechanism of the water meter, the water-filling equipment, the integrity of the seals, as well as the removal and recording of the current readings of the water meter, are tested. At the end of the audit, an appropriate act on the work performed is issued. The user is required to pay directly for the maintenance of water metering devices, since the state does not pay for this service.

Among the unscheduled work already included in the monthly fee for T.O. and performed at the request of a resident, includes the following services:
  - liquidation of leaks in hard-to-reach places of connection of pipes, meter, filter;
  - repair of a water meter if a breakdown is not the fault of the user;
  - cleaning of coarse water filters or their complete replacement in case of a malfunction that arose without user intervention.

Calibration of measuring instruments - a set of measures aimed at determining and confirming the actual readings of metrological characteristics, taking into account previously established technical requirements. Only a professional calibration laboratory, which our MetroService company is, can give a result of suitability.

In contrast to the verification performed by the bodies of the metrological public service, it can also be carried out by a private metrological company, which is able to provide the proper conditions for the qualified performance of this work. In fact, the calibration of measuring instruments is a voluntary operation, but the metrological service of the enterprise is obliged to comply with specific requirements regarding the “binding” of working measuring equipment to the state standard.

SI Calibration and Verification

Calibration of measuring instruments - a set of operations establishing the relationship between the value of a value obtained using a given measuring instrument and the corresponding value of a value determined using a standard in order to determine the actual metrological characteristics of this measuring instrument.

Calibration of measuring instruments is performed at the request of the customer.

Calibration of measuring instruments is similar to the calibration procedure of measuring instruments. The difference is that during calibration we set the limits of measurements ourselves, and during verification the requirements are set by the passport data on the measuring instrument, certificate of approval of the type of measuring instrument and other regulatory legal acts.

Calibration of measuring instruments - the establishment by the body of the State Metrological Service or other officially authorized body or organization of the suitability of the measuring instrument for use on the basis of experimentally determined metrological characteristics and confirmation of their compliance with established mandatory requirements. Verification is carried out strictly according to the verification procedure.

From a legal point of view, verification of measuring instruments is a legitimate procedure for metrological control of measuring instruments, regulated by regulatory documents and certified by the design of a regulatory legal act that fixes the quantitative results of the control and establishes or cancels the right to use this measuring instrument in the field of ensuring the uniformity of measurements.

In order for the calibration of the measuring instrument to be legitimate, the following conditions must be met:

1. The calibrated measuring instrument has an approved type description and a valid number in the State Register of Measuring Instruments.
2. The calibrated measuring instrument is manufactured and discontinued in accordance with the established procedure,
3. Verification is carried out in accordance with the regulatory documents of the State Property Inspection (State System for Ensuring the Uniformity of Measurements) for the verification scheme, verification procedure, using the necessary standards, measuring instruments and auxiliary equipment.
4. The results of verification are recorded by the verification protocol and issued by a certificate of verification with a stamp of the verifier or a notice of unsuitability of the measuring instrument.

Calibration of measuring instruments   - a set of actions and operations that determine and confirm the present (valid) values \u200b\u200bof metrological characteristics and (or) the suitability of measuring instruments that are not subject to state metrological control.

Calibration changed the calibration and metrological certification of measuring instruments, which were carried out only by the bodies of the state metrological service. Calibration, in contrast to verification and metrological certification of measuring instruments, can be carried out by any metrological service, provided that it has the opportunity to provide appropriate conditions for the calibration.

There are four methods of verification (calibration) of measuring instruments:

Direct comparison method with reference   measuring instruments to be calibrated with an appropriate standard of a certain category are practiced for various measuring instruments in such areas as electrical measurements, magnetic measurements, determination of voltage, frequency and current strength. This method is based on measuring the same physical quantity with a calibrated (verified) device and a reference device at the same time. The error of the calibrated (verified) device is calculated as the difference between the readings of the calibrated device and the reference device (i.e., the readings of the reference device are taken as the real value of the measured physical quantity).

Computer Comparison Method   It is carried out using a comparator - a special device, through which the readings of a calibrated (verified) measuring instrument are compared with the readings of a standard measuring instrument.

Direct measurement method   It is used in cases where it is possible to compare the calibrated measuring instrument with the standard within the established measurement range. The direct measurement method is based on the same principle as the direct comparison method.

Indirect Measurement Method   It is used in cases when the real (actual) values \u200b\u200bof the measured physical quantities cannot be obtained through direct measurements or when indirect measurements are higher in accuracy than direct measurements.

Verification schemes   - this is a normative document, which affirms the subordination of measuring instruments taking part in the process of transferring the size of a unit of measurement of a physical quantity from a standard to working measuring instruments by means of certain methods and indicating the error.

Verification schemes are divided into:

1) state verification schemes;

2) departmental verification schemes;

3) local calibration schemes.

22. Legal basis of metrological support. The main provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation "On ensuring the uniformity of measurements"

The Law of the Russian Federation “On ensuring the uniformity of measurements” was adopted in 1993. Prior to the adoption of this Law, norms in the field of metrology were not regulated by law. The Law clearly delineated the responsibilities of state metrological control and state metrological supervision, established new calibration rules, introduced the concept of voluntary certification of measuring instruments.

The main provisions.

First of all, the objectives of the law are as follows:

1) the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of citizens of the Russian Federation, the rule of law and the economy of the Russian Federation from possible negative consequences caused by unreliable and inaccurate measurement results;

2) assistance in the development of science, technology and economics by regulating the use of state standards of units and the use of measurement results with guaranteed accuracy;

3) promoting the development and strengthening of international and inter-company relations and ties;

4) regulation of the requirements for the manufacture, production, use, repair, sale and import of measuring instruments made by legal entities and individuals;

5) integration of the measurement system of the Russian Federation into world practice.

Areas of application of the Law: trade; healthcare environment protection; economic and foreign economic activity; some areas of production related to the calibration (calibration) of measuring instruments by metrological services owned by legal entities, carried out using standards that are subordinate to state standards of units.

All definitions approved in the Law are based on the official terminology of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML).

The law approves the State Metrological Service and other services involved in ensuring the uniformity of measurements, metrological services government agencies   management and forms of implementation of state metrological control and supervision.

The Law defines the types of liability for violations of the Law.

The law approves the composition and powers of the State Metrological Service.

In accordance with the Law, an institute of licensing of metrological activities was created with the aim of protecting the legitimate rights of consumers. Only the bodies of the State Metrological Service have the right to issue a license.

CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATION OF MEASUREMENT MEASURES

Russian calibration system Verification methods (calibration) and verification schemes

Standard samples of the composition and properties of substances and materials

Standard reference data

1. Russian calibration system (rsk)

Calibration of measuring instruments   - a set of operations performed to determine and confirm the actual values \u200b\u200bof metrological characteristics and / or suitability for the use of measuring instruments that are not subject to state metrological control and supervision. The suitability of a measuring instrument means the compliance of its metrological characteristics with previously established technical requirements, which may be contained in a regulatory document or determined by the customer. The conclusion about the suitability is made by the calibration laboratory.

Calibration replaced the departmental calibration and metrological certification of measuring instruments that previously existed in our country. In contrast to the verification carried out by the bodies of the state metrological service, calibration can be carried out by any metrological service (or an individual) if there are appropriate conditions for the qualified performance of this work. Calibration is a voluntary operation and can also be performed by the metrological service of the enterprise itself. This is another difference from verification, which, as mentioned above, is mandatory and is subject to control by the HMS.

However, the voluntary nature of the calibration does not relieve the metrological service of the enterprise from the need to comply with certain requirements. The main one is traceability, i.e. Mandatory “binding” of the working measuring instrument to the national (state) standard. Thus, the calibration function should be considered as an integral part of the national system for ensuring the uniformity of measurements. And if you take into account that the principles of the national system for ensuring the uniformity of measurements are harmonized with international rules and norms, then calibration is included in the world system for ensuring the uniformity of measurements.

The fulfillment of the indicated requirement (“binding” to the standard) is also important from a different point of view: measurements are an integral part of technological processes, i.e. they directly affect product quality. In this regard, the measurement results should be comparable, which is achieved only by transferring unit sizes from state standards and observing the norms and rules of legal metrology. Confidence in the seller of products is reinforced by certificates of calibration of measuring instruments issued on behalf of a reputable national metrological organization.

The introduction of calibration in Russia has its own characteristics. In Western countries, calibration work expanded and developed, growing out of the need to increase the competitiveness of products, and at the same time, a rather limited range of measuring instruments was subject to verification (as an obligatory function). In Russia, calibration is a product of the privatization of processes for monitoring the health of instruments. And, therefore, the rejection of the universal obligation of verification brought to life the calibration function. Such a process of liberalization of metrological control is not universally welcomed and does not go smoothly. Metrologists of both the State Metrological Service and metrological services of enterprises have to move from the usual forms of interaction, worked out for decades, to new relationships, which often causes a negative reaction.

The introduction of calibration is objectively hindered by the lack of competition. A certain contradiction appears here. On the one hand, enterprises in accordance with the law have the right to independently organize the calibration of measuring instruments and are not interested (in the absence of competition) to accredit themselves from the competent accreditation bodies for the right to carry out calibration work. On the other hand, enterprises understand that isolation from the state system of transferring unit sizes from state standards according to an established scheme to working measuring instruments can lead to a loss of accuracy and reliability of measurement results.

The following options for organizing calibration work are possible:

The company independently organizes the calibration work and is not accredited in any system;

An enterprise interested in increasing the competitiveness of products is accredited by the Russian Calibration System (RSK) for the right to carry out calibration work on behalf of its accredited organization;

The company is accredited to DGC with the aim of performing calibration work on a commercial basis;

Enterprises accredited for the right to verify measuring instruments simultaneously receive an accreditation certificate for the right to carry out calibration work on the same types (areas) of measurements;

Metrological institutes and bodies of the State Metrological Service are registered with the RSK simultaneously as accreditation bodies and as calibration organizations;

Accreditation of the enterprise as a calibration laboratory in a foreign open type calibration service.

To date, the preferred options for organizing calibration business in Russia have not yet been decided. But one can already talk about the principles of the organization of the DGC. The Russian calibration system is based on principles such as voluntary entry; obligatory transfer of unit sizes from state standards to measuring instruments; professionalism and technical competence of DGC entities; self-sufficiency.

The main stimulus for joining the DGC should be the desire to increase the degree of consumer confidence in product quality indicators. The process of accreditation of testing laboratories developing in the country, which also covers calibration organizations, is stimulating this process. In addition, membership in the DGC provides adequate information support for calibration activities. The self-sufficiency of DSC is considered as a very real principle, since the need for accurate and reliable measurement results is increasing. In fig. 1 is a diagram of the Russian calibration service. The subjects of the DGC are:

Metrological services of legal entities accredited for the right to calibrate measuring instruments using standards subordinate to state standards of units;

State scientific metrological centers (metrological institutes of Gosstandart of Russia) and bodies of the State metrological service registered in the DGC as accrediting bodies that have the right to accredit metrological services of legal entities for the right to calibrate measuring instruments;

Gosstandart of Russia, which is the central body of the DGC, coordinating the activities of the DGC entities;

All-Russian Research Institute of Metrological Service, which carries out the functions of organizational, methodological and informational support of the RSK activity;

The DGC advisory body is the DGC Council, formed by the State Standard of Russia to formulate and discuss draft decisions of the DGC central body on the technical policy of the DGC.

The members of the DGC Council may be heads of accrediting bodies, heads of accredited metrological services, representatives of the sectors of the national economy and enterprises, research institutes and associations, as well as other societies and associations interested in DGC. All activities of DGC entities are carried out on a contractual basis. Monitoring compliance with the requirements for accredited metrological services is carried out by the body of the State Metrological Service at the location of this metrological service. The accreditation body also carries out internal audits and periodic audits to verify its compliance with the requirements.

The legal basis for the calibration of measuring instruments is determined by Art. 23 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On ensuring the uniformity of measurements". The law sets the limits for the use of calibration: "measuring instruments that are not subject to verification can be calibrated upon release from production or repair, upon import by import, during operation, rental and sale." The law establishes that interested metrological services of legal entities can be accredited for the right to carry out calibration work. The accreditation procedure is established by the State Standard of Russia. In order to implement this provision of the Law, a document was developed: “GSI. The accreditation procedure for metrological services of legal entities for the right to carry out calibration work. ” The document was created on the basis of an analysis of the organization of the national calibration services of England, the USA, the Federal Republic of Germany and other countries, as well as in accordance with the ISO / IEC guidelines, EN 45001-45003 standards and GOST R certification system.

Fig. 1. Scheme of the Russian calibration service

The specified document establishes:

The procedure for registration of accrediting bodies, the procedure for accreditation of metrological services of legal entities and requirements for them;

Control forms for accredited metrological services, the procedure for canceling the accreditation certificate, the rules for maintaining the RSK Register.

The problem in the establishment and development of the Russian calibration service is its regulatory support. There are practically no calibration methods yet, calibration intervals have not been established taking into account specific groups of devices, standards for the cost of calibration work have not been developed. But at the same time, the introduction and development of calibration work in Russia began with the temporary application of the previously well developed regulatory framework for metrological certification and verification.

Calibration interval called the calendar period of time after which the measuring instrument should be directed to calibration, regardless of its technical condition. Similarly, the concept intertesting interval.   There are three types of inter-calibration (inter-calibration) intervals:

The first view is a single interval for all measuring instruments of this type, established on the basis of regulatory documents for this type of measuring instruments. In this case, the intertesting (intercalibration) interval is determined by the State Standard of the Russian Federation when approving the type of measuring instrument according to the test results. The size of the interval takes into account metrological reliability indicators and the average value of the time of use of measuring instruments in normal conditions;

The second type is the interval established in accordance with the specific operating conditions of measuring instruments of this type in organizations and enterprises. If the designated interval does not coincide with that specified in regulatory documents for this type of measuring instrument, its value should be agreed with the State Standard or with the departmental metrological service accredited by it. For measuring instruments that are not subject to state supervision, the calibration interval is determined by decision of the metrological service of the legal entity;

The third type is the inter-calibration (inter-calibration) intervals for measuring instruments intended for critical measuring operations, for example, measurements related to the trouble-free operation of nuclear power plants, gas pipelines, etc.

Individual intervals are also provided for secondary and bit standards. The third type of intervals is related to the calendar time of operation of measuring instruments, since due to the aging of their parts and assemblies, errors increase, which led to a reduction in calibration intervals. The coordination of the assigned intervals is similar to that described for the second type. Common for all types of inter-calibration (inter-calibration) intervals is the accounting of metrological reliability indicators of measuring instruments, in particular, such a component as the mean time between metrological failures. This indicator can be determined during the testing of the measuring instrument, according to the results of which the time to reach the lowest specified value of the probability of failure is calculated. This time also serves as the basis for establishing the intertesting (intercalibration) interval.