Yesterday's post dealt with the announcement that a degree of self-regulation is to be conferred on the airline industry by the Trudeau government. Given the fraught history of self-regulation in this country, it is alarming news. BM, a frequent commentator, offered an analysis of the situation as well as an interesting perspective on what is driving that change. I am taking the liberty of featuring his insights as a guest post:
Well, it would certainly argue against flying Air Canada to San Fran, where the existing pilots seem to be having a tough job as it is. That second incident where the pilot ignored 6 request/orders to go around and couldn't see the flashing red light either was a doozy. The short interview I heard with the pilot, equipped with a plummy British accent, was revealing. Radio trouble. Oh yes? With at least three radios available, according to other pilots in various pilots' online forums. Not mentioned - blindness to flashing red lights from the control tower.
In a proper quality assurance system, amply documented and thus verifiable to process under an outside audit, where procedures are detailed to a very fine degree, letting the industry "run" itself is just fine. Electricity and Gas meters are inspected under this regime in Canada - I was involved in setting such a system up. In the 1990s, not now. It does require that company executives be part of the system as well, and part of the audit. Everyone has procedures they must know inside out, no excuses. There are avenues for considering improvements, and documentation of everyone's training and ability to follow the system. In other words, some shop foreman in a lousy mood cannot come in one morning and change what everyone does, just because HE/SHE feels like it, or there is a recorded miscompliance report which anyone can make without fear of retribution. Keeps 'em all sane.
When it comes to meatcutting or piloting, you are dealing with situations that are not boringly standard, like instrument testing. Turnover of personnel is highly likely in the meat business, and low wages with perhaps poor English skills only exacerbate problems with written procedures. Oversight is necessary. And pilots, well they all believe they know what's best and which SOPs they can disregard. You just have to go to the TSB's website and read accident analyses to see that.
The driving force for self-regulation in industry is no doubt driven by the same Public Service pointy-heads who cannot see the difference between an ordered industrial process and situations where the humans require continual oversight. The politicians are merely attracted by the promise of saving money given them by their public service advisers, so I cannot blame either Liberals or Conservatives myself. Politicians sometimes have trouble tieing their own shoelaces, let alone understanding anything complicated. And the average person hasn't a clue about the difference between quality inspection and quality assurance, the latter being the self-regulation system, the first where outsiders check every bit. You don't need to inspect every single widget if the process is under control. That's the way cars are made these days, with the possible exception of FCA.
Lack of commonsense is the problem. One process is not the same as another and may not be amenable to auditable self-regulation.
Great, aerial listeria.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting I recommend self-regulation for the meat-packing and airline industry? That's the implication of this short reply.
ReplyDeleteI thought I'd argued the opposite. Apparently, a quick skim did not reveal the nuances I was putting forward.
This past week, both Nissan and Subaru have been hauled up for not providing trained seals for their final inspections of vehicles destined for the Japanese domestic market. Inspecting a complete vehicle after it's made is a fool's errand in this day and age, when processes are so documented that any deviance from compliance in an orderly process can be quickly discovered. However, the Japanese government is still operating on the basis that each and every widget has to be given the once-over, an attitude that doesn't take into account the quality assurance strides that were made in the 1960s to this day in manufacturing.
Our brave public servants on the other hand, want to implement QA procedures on systems not conducive to it, where indivisual inspection remains an important tool for safety. They are the opposite of the Japanese. Both exhibit little commonsense to the reality of things, the way I see it.
BM