Are you able to make a case for real world accuracy and repeatability using a weigh bridge check system ? Specifically, one needs to address, satisfactorily, those sorts of error sources which Genghis, among others, has suggested as being worthy of concern ...
Yes I believe a system such as my patent pending weigh bridge (Name witheld for forum rules reasons) can reliably, accurately and importantly, verifiably, check and warn crews of loading errors both small and large.
How can I substantiate my claim? In a number of ways..
1. There is plenty of experience in the weighing industy to base accuracy assumptions on. Still air as a start point. There is no great mystery, as some would like to believe, surrounding weighing objects both large and small. Remeber that the load sheet is comprised of individually weighed items. Are you questioning the accuracy of the load sheet from a weighing standpoint?
2. Model construction with corrections as discussed earlier is really only a marketing tool. That said it will form the basis of the protype computer model.
3. The real world experience happens when the prototype is trialed over an extended period, using real aircraft on real days (Yes windy, icy, raining, foggy, dusty, snowy and in typhoon conditions).
Dare I say it here? The aeroplane you fly today started life as a prtotype that was used to substantiate the designer's claims.
The problem in the industry is not one of technology, as any SAWE member realises but rather our defensiveness when faced with change. This is perfectly understandable if the target of the change is the present system and its fine practioners. But t is not! That point get's lost in the emotion of the argument.
The weigh bridge system is designed to COMPLIMENT and ENHANCE (Capitals added for emphasis) the present MWBS.
But additionally the present system lacks a final INDEPENDENT check and warning system.
I agree with Ghengis and others we as practioners do need to exercise more care and responsibility with respect to the accuracy of the data that makes up the load sheet result. But as we all know real worls pressures preclude many of the checks we would like to make before door closing.
My other concern in this regard is with the new generation of pilots who have cut their teeth on glass cockpit aircraft.They have been successfully immunised, as any video game expert eventually realises, from the real world outside the video screen
A healthy suspicion of all human data inputs, with a large dose of good luck, has given me a 41+ year (21,500+ hour) safe flying career.
Lastly I haven't heard anyone express the desire, nee need for, an alternative system to the present MWBS. Maybe it is thought of as a nice to have not need to have system? Maybe it is expected to cost a poltice?
The fact is that several aviation stakeholders currently use aircraft weight to make money right now.
Airports (Some) charge by MTOW for landing fees (A poor choice of term).
Some regulators allow placard weight changes (HKG for example) to save landing fees.
ATS are increasingly basing their airways fees on aircraft weight.
Regulators are aware of the growth in aircraft weight between D checks but have no practical way of confirming that.
I have developed a new paradigm for use by airports that uses yield management to make money from the existing fleets.
Yield management?
The concept that allows you to pay double for your ticket, hotel room or rental car than the guy sitting next to you on a plane.
It is interesting to note that computer models are being developed that can compute weight & balance on board a ship at sea. That research is reaching the point where it will soon be capable to provide real time weight & balance mesurement in most sea conditions. Seems a shame to be overtaken by the venerable senior service.
Chok Dee