> It can be done by enforcing that the company must establish and document the processes to ensure quality
You have no ideea.
It's sooo extremely easy to fake everything! I'm working with ISO15189 right now. I could just fill paperwork saying I did things that I didn't really do. Nobody could tell the difference. Sometimes there's an audit. It's announced months in advance and they only just look at the paperwork. I'm the only one here that knows the analysers have trace logs and how do get/print them. Some of those logs are just CSV text files. I could fake those too.
According to ISO, the company should do an audit every year. Last one was 3 years ago, but I'm certain that someone wrote down every year that they did it.
falsified paperwork is better than no paper trail in the event planes start falling out of the sky - spotting one moderate falsification could very well lead to further verification when it comes to investigations deemed important by the public.
Ah, yes, no paperwork, I completely forgot about that. It's even more common than fake doing stuff.
Don't be so confident that falsification can be spotted. It usually can't. Or require very time-consuming cross-checks that I never saw happen in my entire 20y career, such as comparing the number times an internal control was run vs. the quantity of consumables used in the process that were bought.
In case of Boeing, the other problem is... who's going to look before the plane crashes?
Yeah, but sometimes "if your negligence kills these people we will put you in jail" is exactly how you get people to pay attention. The vital part is closing the loop.
I disagree. That's not how it works. Responsibility is a product of education and environment, not a product of fear. Fear makes people avoid responsibility, not assume it.
Fear is a phenomenal backstop to responsibility, and in fact most aviation safety relies on the fact that pilots don't want to die.
Paperwork should be regularly audited and discrepancies investigated. The other nice thing about fear is that it should be very specific - people should know exactly what they have to do to not feel it.
The consequences part that I mentioned is where it's at, if one wanted to design a functioning system.
If there's an incident and the investigation reveals an engineer signed off on something that was contrary to process, they lose their license and get to switch careers to something else.
If it turns out management pushed the engineer to do that, personal liability on management means they get to do some long jail time.
With those two enforcement points, you cut out nearly all the cheating.
Personal liability on management never happens. If it did, they would find a way to transfer it somewhere else: a contractor from 3rd world country, a discardable subsidiary, etc. Nothing will stand in the way of profits, not even bad publicity - they would just sell / be bought, rebrand, and do it all over again.
Oh, of course it'll never happen. I'm just responding to the thread that if a government actually wanted to create an effective quality mechanism, it's possible.
You have no ideea.
It's sooo extremely easy to fake everything! I'm working with ISO15189 right now. I could just fill paperwork saying I did things that I didn't really do. Nobody could tell the difference. Sometimes there's an audit. It's announced months in advance and they only just look at the paperwork. I'm the only one here that knows the analysers have trace logs and how do get/print them. Some of those logs are just CSV text files. I could fake those too.
According to ISO, the company should do an audit every year. Last one was 3 years ago, but I'm certain that someone wrote down every year that they did it.