There seem to be a few discussions going on on here, but I am referring to the original IBZ briefing question and replies.
It seems many airlines have different briefing regimes, that or the pilots do. Personally, having been subjected to watching numerous accident report video replays and also reading numerous accident reports over the years, it seems that a good briefing can offset the chances of cocking up when you get there. Some people on here think its too thorough? Personally, I don't want to be briefing the go-around, missed approach and whether we're gonna be diverting at the point I call "go-around flap". Its kind of busy then, so why not mention the essentials at the outset? Much of the rest of the briefing is company standard for me I am afraid, we have to brief things like runway incursion points/ runway exits to be used, whether we're gonna be flying auto or manual (gives the other guy a heads up), and what we're gonna expect (RV or procedural). MSA needs flagging up as does whether I am planning on landing full flap or flap 3. As I brief I cross check that I've set it up properly in the box, by pointing to the relevant bit in the computer/ on the screen as I brief. This is useful for a cross check and means that generally (unless having a really bad day) I know I've got the thing set up as I expect it!! I brief the nav aids I'll use, and check them in the box at the same time.
Surely spending 5 minutes briefing well at a quiet time is better than coming down the approach, discovering that its procedural not vectored at the last minute, having a blocked runway causing a go-around, not knowing the missed approach, not having the nav aids set properly etc. just increases the chain of events that can easily lead to an incident or accident.
At work I find its better to be boring and safe than to have a flight that gets too exciting (and possibly unsafe).
No surprises.