I have a problem with the requirement that to be a RPT you have to be
able to tune the temperament by ear.  This seems to be a prejudice
against new technologies.  It also means that anyone whose hearing is
not up to par can never be an RPT.

If I can take a new autostrobe tuner with stretch tables, for example,
and tune a piano completely, how is that any less effective than
starting with a tuning fork at A-440 and going from there?  Someone in
MMD said, "What if you're doing a tuning job, and your electronic tuner
breaks, or the battery dies?  You've got to be able to finish the job."
Well, what if your tuning hammer breaks?  Or strips?  What if 5 strings
break, and you've only got enough wire left for 4?  There may be any
number of reasons a person couldn't finish a job in one session.

As you may have guessed by now, I don't have a very good ear.  I'm new
at this, and can tune octaves by ear, but can't quite pick up the beats
in the 4ths, 5ths, etc., in the temperament.  Maybe because I used to
work in a loud environment.  But when a person loses use of their legs
due to accident or illness, the world allows them to use a wheelchair
to get to work and do their work.  As long as technology allows a
person to do the job right, why not allow it?  Would the PTG require
a person to do math in their head vs. with a calculator?

So, tell me if I'm wrong: do the newest electronic tuners _not_ do as
good a job as someone with a good ear?  Or should the PTG change it's
certification rules to allow the use of electronic tuners?  In the end,
isn't the result what counts?

Bill Mackin