What a wonderful thread....
My two pence worth..
Boeing - the real quandary is what is the best possible outcome.
At its worst, with two non-listening votes carrying fixed mindsets, they are part of the problem. So the theoretical possibility of a better outcome if they were different is as relevant as a better outcome if the boat wasn't sinking, or if you were on Southend beach rather than in mid-ocean.
If there isn't sufficient time to solve the problem of the non-listeners, you do the best you can with them as they are.
You deal with the situation as it is, making the best of a bad job if necessary.
And picking up on Centaurus:
So you're too fast on finals and the FO is taking too long to come round to your way of thinking ....
CRM orthodoxy or ( the payload + your life + the airframe + the FO )?
No contest!
So going back to the original scenario, you pick up the No 1 choice and sit on it whilst they decide on the other three.
Or you tell the scenario inventor that you don't give two figs for putting them in order so long as your number 1 choice is on board with you. Putting them in order is simply training mischief to generate unnecessary and inappropriate conflict.
What the exercise leaves out - crucially - is the role of captain, and if anything, the (imho flawed) exercise demonstrates the need for it. In an emergency, wisdom, judgement and experience need to be recognised and used, and in time critical situations to be used without democratic debate.
For my money, CRM is about establishing an environment in which that can happen smoothly, effectively and instantly if a time critical situation arises.
And the captain must be especially skilled at recognising the wisdom, judgement, experience, skill and knowledge assets of the whole team.
Last edited by Rightbase; 1st Jun 2008 at 16:19.
Reason: Clarity - and toned down a bit!