A great post, Rat 5. I suspect I had the first jet job at the same place as you - a LTN based charter company with a lady on the tail - happy days. The emphasis then was indeed on 'flying the aeroplane' with minimum over analysis of the limited automatics. We even seemed to find the Canaries using VOR's! It is not the fault of the magenta line generation that successive decades of training 'managers' with limited understanding of complex automation have deemed it virtually mandatory to use automation modes to the fullest extent.
The only point I would take up with you is the promoting of Airbus as a convert to the 'use less automation - it's just an aeroplane' brigade. Having had a foot in both 'camps' I can say that I did a manufacturers course on the A340 in 1994 and the first thing was a 'dollar ride' where you flew the sim without automation and the point was made that with a sidestick and throttle it was indeed 'just an aeroplane'. The various talking heads from Airbus that promote this novel approach to post - modern training are just cynically attempting to sell more aeroplanes ad reinforcing back to basics.
This accident has possibly highlighted another gap in the system: how often are baulked landings trained in the simulator? Almost never I would say similar to all engine go arounds, also traditionally mishandled due startle effect or lack of training / misunderstanding. I have experienced bounced landings for real as a base trainer and zft trainer of cadets- some of these landings have ended up as go arounds near the ground - I am just happy that the gear didn't come up too early which could have ended with the same result as this accident.
It would be good to think that lessons can be learnt: swiss cheese is always present and it will not be lack of technique solely responsible. I hope that EK take a pro - active, non punitive overview of the circumstances. Finally, RIP to the fireman.