At a risk of stirring the pot somewhat and upsetting various people, we need to keep in mind that the "rules" are based on history and history-based "reasonable" assumptions. The rules do not provide an absolute guarantee that all will go well on every occasion.
So, what to do ?
The poor cousin end of the market has a tendency to suck in some air between clenched teeth and apply whatever protocols seem to fit, SOP or whatever and, often, without much independent thought being given to the problem. The sensibly risk aware operator (and pilot, if you don't have a serious operator behind you) will make sure that the dice are loaded your way by running appropriate calculations in the design office. This, really, is just basic corporate risk management.
If the obstacle profile for the runway considered to apply for the miss is very benign, then the normal SOP will not have a great problem in general. For many areas, this covers a large proportion of the extant runways.
However, as the obstacle problems increase, there is a sensible need to do some ops engineering type sums to make sure that you know what you might be facing for the dark night situation when it all goes awry. Do you have all the data you might like to have ? Generally, not. But all is not lost.
There is no easy way out of the dilemma - you need the obstacle data, you need the AFM, and you need the technical skills and time to run some analyses to figure some weight limits and flight paths appropriate for the situation. Presuming you already have assessed the obstacles and have run any appropriate OEI escape plans for the runway, you should have enough obstacle data available to run the sums on a quasi takeoff process using the available AFM performance data and, if necessary, some simple flight test data to fill in any missing bits for the office work. It's not rocket science but it does take a bit of knowledge and understanding and the will to spend some money on the work up to provide the crew with useful and sensible data for the miss planning.
Some of us take considerable pains to get this stuff sensibly right, others tend to rely on motherhood statements and winging things on the fly. I know which approach I favour.
A few personal thoughts on previous post comments.
when do the thrust levers go from TOGA to MCT
If it's a planned for situation, much the same as for takeoff and you plan the story to meet the AFM engine limitations. If you are in some nasty emergency situation where pre-planning couldn't have been done, I don't think you need to worry too much about running a bit over the time limits if you have a reasonable need to do so. Maintenance might not include you on their Christmas card list for the year but that's the least of your worries.
I decide i want to follow the standard missed approach instead of a custom EOSID.
Bit late, methinks, to be making those sort of decisions in the heat of the moment. That is the sort of stuff you need to think about at pre-flight planning or, if you are in an emergency divert situation, during the divert cruise.
In a missed approach you are much higher a the start of the go-around
Perhaps, perhaps not. How about if you are faced with a miss from the flare or very late final ? And you still have to figure the distance needed to reconfigure to a takeoff situation where you can better fit the performance to the obstacle profile(s). Always keeping in mind the main mantra - "don't crash".
There's no acceleration segment in missed approach procedure
Which is why you need to run an obstacle analysis. While this can be done with gradients, and with some mathematical pushing and shoving, it is much easier to use a discrete obstacle analysis ie where you know the obstacle x, y, z data.
So can you two back this with any written proof ?
I doubt it very much. There is just too much variation to countenance the motherhood approach.
If you happen to be flying one of those charts you can accelerate and clean the airplane as per the procedure.
Not really. There is no "one size fits all" in the reconfiguration. Perhaps you might like to compare several Types for third segment distance data. Do include the DC9 in that selection ...
Now, has anyone thought much about this on a day where the airspace is filled to the brim with turbulence ?