"framer" - yes you are right we get more tasks, and with 25 minutes turn-around we learn to be more efficient, but no way will I avoid spending 20 seconds on checking this or other things that is of importance, to cut corners, simply because what we think we are saving in time, is of no insignificant.
That's great, I hope you are the pilot when I am paxing. I take a similar attitude to my duties but do you want all of your flights to be safe or all flights to be safe? You go on to say:
I have seen it with few commanders etc., where they love to play a game to see how close to the edge they can fly, perform with regards to descent, configuring to get established by 1000 ft. Sure when it works it is sweet, however one day "Murphy's law will hit them" and they will run out of options and time, as they leave themselves no margin for the unexpected!
Fortunately this is the minority, but still one incident is one to much!
That makes the point quite clearly, a system has to be tolerant of behaviours other than just the most exemplorary. The same commanders you speak of cannot be trusted to be as diligent as yourself with checking the latches etc, and they will always be there, in every company to a greater or lesser extent.
So if you are tasked with ensuring that this never happens again you have to go deeper than " it wouldn't happen if I was flying" if you wish to be successful.
The trick is know that these errors will occur, and to design systems that are tolerant of those errors. Ensuring that the accountants that run the airlines don't reduce time available to operational staff to a degree that encourages rushing is key. It is the make-up of the system itself.