Getting the information from Flight Ops is the best
D'accord, providing that the data is sourced from appropriate folk on a basis of integrity. Centaurus tells a tale of an operator of his acquaintance where management didn't like the numbers for one runway with the obstacles included so they contracted to get data based on the runway and obstacle information they provided to the contractor ... guess what ? Only a problem if one quits on takeoff, I guess.
Simply following the EOSID when going missed, especially as a blind statement, is fought with disaster.
The major problem is getting the aircraft onto the escape path at or above the takeoff computed elevation with appropriate speed and configuration in the first instance. The flight path during reconfiguration and acceleration is the difficulty for calculation as the AFM generally doesn't give you any information. Then you have to worry about traffic, as you suggest. Nothing's easy .. hence the way to go is have a pre-computed ops engineering procedure for a critical miss.
Go missed at the MAP, level, then follow the EOSID?
You tell me. Keep in mind that for the overweight case postulated, lose one with landing flap/gear down and you are likely to keep going down for some time until you get the aircraft reconfigured and faster .. I keep belabouring this as it is not generally well understood. A read of JW's mishap in the F27 (VH-FNH) at Launceston many years ago highlights the problems ..
https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...st-1965-a.html has some recollections. Full flap, gear down with one out and you should expect to keep going down ... getting to the configuration and speed you need takes time, distance, and height compromises ... not nice stuff in a critical terrain situation ?
If you can follow it on takeoff you can definitely make it on a go-around!
That might be a tad optimistic if you are starting behind the play overweight, full flap and gear down .. Reality is that, for many cases, the only sensible solution is to adopt a higher missed approach point to accommodate the intervening bit of activity before you get to the takeoff configuration, speed and track.
If you took off from that runway you can land on it.
Again, not always a shoe-in .. depends on takeoff and landing configurations/speeds.
1) Check the Approach Climb gradient table to confirm available performance exceeds the MAP gradient (and Overweight Landing checklist if applicable).
Now, where did you figure in the distance and height delta requirements for reconfiguration and acceleration ?
2) If it doesn’t, OR a go-round is made from below the MDA/DA, then follow the engine out procedure ( which, in the case of a quick return you know because you just took off).
Same question ..
3) If there is a special published engine out MAP follow that instead.
Ah, that's the better way to approach things.
Again, I may appear just to be a silly old pharte worrying about this and that ... really, I'd just like to think that you good folk might think it a bit deeper than you appear to be doing.
Might I suggest, next sim session playtime, that folks have a look at a MLW, full flap, gear down, scheduled landing speed miss from the minimum .. with a failure just before .. and see just how different it is from the AEO miss .. chalk and cheese .. and then try it again at MTOW.