> First and foremost is the attitude that rules are stupid and/or inefficient.
This is a great reason why to try your hardest to avoid implementing stupid rules. When some rules are stupid and become ignored, other rules lose their power.
In the context of flying, where a careless error can result in death, this tedious checking has a very logical explanation, one that I assume most pilots are aware of.
More broadly, I suspect that a lot of rules exist specifically because what seems obvious and natural in a situation gets you in trouble. But by that token, such rules can't help but appear "stupid" but also can't and shouldn't be avoided.
and understanding that even over just 2 layers of bureaucracy its really easy to lose an understanding of the why behind a process
---------
Part of that is that its quicker to just rely on the institutional power
"I'm your boss, do it this way because I tell you to"
"My boss told me it needs to be this way, and I'm your boss, and the bs flows downstream, so do it this way"
uses fewer institutional resources, but that comes at the cost of no one actually knowing why things are being done the way they're being done,
and no one understands the costs of deviance from the processes being implimented
------
and in lots of instances, the benefits to deviance tend to be higher than 'we get to take off a little faster'
lots of times what we measure people on tends to be in conflict with the processes we want people to follow, so we even incentivize people inventing little shortcuts around the processes we want people to follow
And blaming the rules for the behavior of those people is not the correct position.
(see also: why the only thing many HN users know about G.K. Chesterton is the fence thing)