Consol, I agree in part, because those scenarios contribute to learning, particularly in identifying the need to change the course of action.
However, to what extent can we use normal operations for training or to gain experience? In real threat situations action is a must, elsewhere perhaps 'gaining experience' is judged too expensive.
A more efficient objective would be, as far as possible, to avoid the potential for 'real' scenarios; but as you identify this is not always possible.
We need to train pilots how to identify and manage the unexpected, how to adapt and not rely on a rule or procedure; knowing when / when not to deviate. Training for thinking - how to operate; not just training to fly - how to move controls.
The FSF report specifically targets violation.
The report considers that humans 'deliberately' deviate from the required action. This view assumes that the human is aware of the error, but this overlooks human weaknesses in perception; natural limits of human performance.
What do pilots do when they are not aware of error? Violate rules, but is this deliberate?