I recall from many years ago, our company hired several B737-200 captains from Indian Airlines, on a short term contract. They were astounded at what they perceived was unnecessarily superfluous and complicated SOP with regards to engine failure shut-down procedure where the actions were shared between PF and PM as described in previous posts. Even in those days there were various opinions of who says who and who makes the selections.
The Boeing FCOM/FCTM made no mention of who did what and whose paying the rent as it were - leaving it to the operator to complicate things as much as it wished. And man! Were they complicated with all that talking between PF and PM for a simple shut down. Reading the previous posts I see things haven't change over the years..
As I said, the newly recruited Indian captains wouldn't have a bar of the sharing of the engine failure/ shut down procedures. The policy of their airline was the captain does all the drills even if he was PF. In fact he would take over control if the failure occurred while the first officer happened to be flying. If an engine failed or needed to be shut down, the captain would say something like "No 2 has failed - do you agree?" Then he would proceed in an un-hurried manner to close the dead throttle, cut the dead start lever, pull the fire handle (if it was an engine fire) and fire the bottles. The first officer merely watched (monitored is the modern term) and kept an eye on things.
There was no talking about who does which and certainly no areas of responsibility. The captain flew and fixed everything; after all the drills were very few so no drama. I must say it was refreshing to see how well it worked with the minimum of fuss and talking. Contrast that era with what we see in previous posts here, where different management pilots have different views about who says what and who does what and obvious setting up a potential for confusion. The KISS principle is ignored nowadays
