SASless,
funny you should say that: I nearly quoted that take off brief (we're outta here)!
I think you have to descriminate between SOPs as a form of automated response that has no thought behind it and a standard response that has been considered before carrying out. Also, you cannot criticise a crew for acting in accordance with SOPs based on the KNOWLEDGE THEY HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM. So, if after rotation in a jet a crew get an engine out warning and maybe a fire warning, coupled with a sudden yaw, I hardly think you can complain if they carry out the company SOP for engine failure/fire. Unless they watch their CFM-56 fly past the port window, how the hell can they know any different?
I was thinking more along the line of normal operations, not abnormal ops where the checklist or QRH may not cater for every eventuality and the crew may have to improvise and use their knowledge and experience to deal with a problem.
For normal ops, there should be commonality of standards. If you don't like an SOP question it and discuss it on the ground with the relevant post holder, but don't invent your own procedures, or pass them on to others. "Well, what the book say is this, but what I like to do is this" etc.
Also, don't be lulled into thinking that automation is the key to it all. It will free up spare mental capacity and should broaden your situational awareness, but unless you know how to operate it (training) and what your company/manufacturer procedures are (SOPs) you can still get into trouble. If anything it demands stronger discipline to use.
SOPs do not mean losing individual airmanship or becoming a robot.