I agree, somewhat. But I also almost had to write an incident report the other day on why an operator didn't accurately follow the precautions of a procedure after it was briefed and specifically covered NOT to do it. This is after he assured me that he has performed the evolution many times and knew what he was doing.
I've seen this type of thing happen too many times. In my not so humble opinion, the pre-evolution brief was the root cause of the failure. It was also a failure of leadership.
Training should be about what to do, reinforcing positive behaviors--not the opposite. The ol' "perfect practice makes perfect" concept. We see that this principle is true and able to be used effectively in two-year-olds!
If you want to keep your toddler from walking through a puddle, you don't say, "Don't walk through the puddle." You will undoubtedly be putting those shoes off to the side to dry for a few days because there is no other option in his or her mind but to walk through the puddle. To ensure success, you say, "Let's walk around the puddle." The toddler will comply because there are no other options floating around in that noggin.
When you practice an instrument, you don't play the wrong notes in hopes that it will cause you to play the correct ones during the concert.
I wasn't there, but I dare say more emphasis was placed on what not to do than on what to do. There is a place for discussing (a) lessons learned, (b) past incidents, and (c) current anomalies or limitations, for example; however, always end on the positive message. Also, I realize that this individual said he had conducted the evolution many times, which is a recipe for complacency, and for the prideful person it sets up an environment that will not allow him to reach out for help.
So, at the critical--was it cut the blue wire or don't cut the blue wire?--moment, what do you think stuck out in his mind the most, the positive message or the negative message? Moreover, the climate set up probably sent a message conveying that asking for help would be highly frowned upon, putting his value as an operator in question.
Just my opinion from the outside looking in...