captjns;
Yes, and to discuss it a bit for others...
If nothing else, doing it in the airplane certainly gives one confidence in the machine and familiarity with one's own capabilities and enhanced skills.
That said, history has lessons of its own here in terms of training accidents and I don't suppose too many would blame the heads of flight training for not having the stomach for them - to save costs, time is intentionally compressed because each landing is a touch-and-go, essentially a go-around by any other name. After the t/d, the instructor takes over momentarily, to ensure the flaps are re-set, the engines spooled and the student is "cleared to go" again. Such work is worth its weight in gold however, even with the occasional engine throttled back at rotation to simulate failure. After one has the experience, one realizes just how far the simulator is from the airplane, even today. They're good, but inertia, mass, g, and response to same simply cannot be duplicated.
PEI_3721;
Even the go-around is not automatically consdered the safest manoeuvre even though it may be the best/safest option "in the moment". There are a number of accidents which have occurred on the go-around due to various reasons including disorientation, mode-confusion and lack of familiarity and/or skill/training as well as an almost universal time-compression during the manoeuvre. Mental preparation and mental state are, as has been observed here, key elements which avoid surprise, distress and a possible loss of control.
At Kingston, whether a go-around from the runway was available, doable, wise or whether the accident began to occur after touchdown we do not know yet even though many will have an idea or two.