modify the brief if you feel it enhances safety
There is a subtle difference between a briefing and a SOP. Clearly a brief can modified if you feel it enhances safety; the danger is if the modification infringes a SOP, and then by misperception of a safety threat it could expose the operation to other hazards.
SOPs are ‘Standard’; their strength is that they are (should be) well thought out before flight, judged against a range of threats, and adequately documented. If anyone believes that SOPs could be enhanced or should modified then discuss this with management. It is just as likely that the SOP author has missed a situation or failed to communicate the original intention as any mistake on your part. Thus the industry should encourage individuals to take ‘ownership’ of company SOPs; it is up to the users to aid the authors – communicate all concerns.
Another danger in modifying a briefing or encouraging lateral thinking in ‘standard’ situations is that whilst there are adaptable people who can cope with these changes or a myriad of alternatives, others cannot. Thus unless the briefer is absolutely confident that the changes have been well though through and completely understood then stick with the simple solution. As pilots we are rarely rated against our peers; we do not have a good understanding of how other pilots perceive risk, understand briefings, or indeed how they think. Pilots who have been ‘rated’ are often those involved an incident or accident.
The mitigation of a safety threat often depends on how it is perceived. If a student pilot has been taught that an engine fire is doom, death, etc, and warrants urgent action, then it may be very difficult to change that perception later in life. Often quoted is ‘Train for the threat’; less often are accurate definitions of the threat.
It is very beneficial to discuss use of reverse following a fire warning and the benefits of turning into wind, but the discussion must put many other aspects into context. Thus with a fire warning and RTO what is the dominant threat, what are the consequential threats? Is the warning real? (In my book all warnings are real, only the engineers can tell you afterwards). Are there flames or is it a hot air leak? Is there a fuel leak? Did the warning cease after shut down, was this a cure or did the system burnt through? (Design requirements require a degree of containment of both engine parts and fire within the cowling).
Where so many imponderables exist, one should stay with the known facts, the basics: - there has been a warning; stop: drills: decision to evacuate. Remember the fatalities at MAN were due to smoke not flames; thus a quick evacuation is a high priority.
We are required to take the safest option, but where we do not have the facts, time or thinking resource to fully evaluate the situation, then don’t guess, don’t prejudge. However, come the day and you do have the facts and time then turn into wind on the runway, but then the facts about the wind and turn direction should be known before you roll.