I think this is very true of my industry as well. We make checklists and procedures but to staff who weren't around when the "lessons were learned" they are often meaningless. Finding ways to make sure people truly take on board what they are taught and the logical connections between the checklist and what's happening in front of them... ai, if I could work out how to make sure that happens, I'd be minted.
It is in fact one of the reasons why I'm leaving my career in safety/quality management next month and instead just going to have an easier job, enabling me the energy and time to indulge my other interests such as writing epic articles about disasters largely for my own pleasure! I'm getting frustrated with dealing with complaints and investigations into incidents where staff didn't follow procedures properly because they had no insight into why those processes were in place, even though they had apparently been trained properly. One of my first actions in my current job two years ago was dealing with a death caused by staff ignoring procedures, and I am frequently having to remind even staff who were here at the time about it!
It's even more heartbreaking though when staff do stuff more or less properly, as Terrington and Love did in Manchester, and still have a disaster... knowing that at some point in the future the pain they, the victims and survivors went through will become a meaningless training anec***e is immensely frustrating. I kindof see why automation is seen as a solution to that, in that it removes human nature from the equation, especially when not every pilot, even in the "old days", would have been capable of legendary saves - there's always going to be incidents where the staff are the ones who only just passed their exams, innit...
EDIT: Um, why has the board automatically censored the "d o t" in "a n e c d o t e"? ***!