Hi PJ2 - apologies for stepping in on the response to fdr, but I'd like to pick your brains while you're here...
Given that:
CRM is nothing new to those who already knew how to communicate and fly, at the same time...
And that
the outcomes of UA232, US Airways 1549 [were] just [a result of] intelligent, experienced, professional aviators doing their job together, and doing it well
Can it not be considered that the aforementioned incidents show what good CRM (as a concept, not as a training regime) should be?
CRM was originally a solution to the era during the 60's, 70's & even the 80's where, the "captain is god", the corollary being, 'god makes no mistakes.' The perception and sometimes even the reality was, if the F/O, the S/O, the F/E or the NAV raised a question, offered a suggestion or even directly challenged the captain, it was seen as "attempting to take over the airplane" or questioning the captain's authority. With some of the crustier guys (from WWII), one risked having one's head bit off.
Agreed, and I also agree with your points regarding the opposite end of the scale. However CRM training - then as now - seems to have come in different "flavours" when implemented by different airlines. As I said before, United's was called CLR - and it eschewed some of the more ephemeral aspects in favour of purely attempting to achieve the best possible result via intelligent use of the crew's abilities.
CRM is something of a mini-intervention, which has been formalized into specific steps which require specific outcomes (resolutions and a plan of action) within a time-frame.
In terms of training (with a focus on remedial action) yes, but the concept at its heart is, as you say, already applied by a lot of pilots without having to recognise and name it as CRM.
A penny for your thoughts?