He's no doubt learned some important lessons, but I can't find destroying $12 million in equipment in any way funny. [c0deporn has updated his original to the more accurate and appropriate "interesting".]
If someone broke a $12m machine, surely their career would be over.
Another Lockheed test pilot wrecked a F-16E at an airshow practice and ejected with injuries now flies F-35s.
Who would you rather have working on your $12m machine, someone with no real experience with that sort of hardware or someone with plenty of experience and some painfully learned lessons about exactly how careful you have to be when working with brittle $12m machines.
There are two philosophies of justice: retributive and utilitarian. Retributive justice is about punishing the guilty. If you destroy a $12 million machine, you deserve to have $12 million taken away from you. Most people don't have $12 million, so the retributive boss will take away as much as he can: fire you and file suit if he can and badmouth you to other companies so you never work again.
Utilitarian justice is about preventing future harm. It's not about punishing the guy who pushed the button on destroying $12 million of hardware, it's about preventing future hardware losses. You fire the guy if you think he's likely to destroy more hardware in the future, because maybe he was negligent and careless or even malicious. You keep the guy if he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and any other competent employee would have made the same call and inflicted the same loss.
So while the "$12 million in training" line is a great ice-breaker for making the poor guy feel better, if someone broke a $1 million machine, then a $2 million machine (after all, he has $1 million of training now), then a $3 million machine, then a $6 million machine, would you say, "Great, he's got $12 million of training! Let's put him in charge of our $12 million machine!"?