But entirely prompted by bad CRM on the point of the skipper.
Really? Strong opinion indeed. Seems to me that unconsciously the replies so far reveal the respondents favour the warm and fuzzy method of captaincy. To make the co-pilot feel he is wanted, the captain should massage his ego. These replies show how much the Human Factors trick-cyclists have taken away the authority of the captain to run his own ship.
I think the captain was perfectly entitled to navigate the aircraft as he saw fit. The co-pilot regardless of his experience is there as a back-up and support pilot – not a quasi-captain. When the first officer has gained the experience and seniority to be considered for a command, his company will train him for the job. Until then he might be legally second in command and that means he supports the captain in his job - not challenge every decision to satisfy his own ego just to prove that he can. The captain should not be compelled to explain every action he takes just to keep in the good books of his subordinate.
Of course if the captain was doing something outrageously dangerous to the conduct of the flight one would expect the co-pilot as second in command to step in and do something to rectify the situation. But the captain in the example given, was merely displaying sound command judgement – yet is being pilloried by those who see the cockpit crew as a team with the captain acting as “team leader” and he should use the members of his “team” to come to a course of action that they all agree on. In other words, command by consensus. That is not what command authority is all about.