StudentKaro The EASA legislation is a little harder to navigate than the FAA legislation. This response is therefore based on FAA legislation.
The short answer to your question: your company should provide you with guidance on what to do in case of a go around with an engine out.
Follow this link:
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...AC_120-91A.pdf To get to an advisory circular. Chapter 20 will provide you with some guidance.
The long answer:
There is a disconnect between what the airplane certification and the obstacle clearance in the design of a missed approach. The airplane manufacturer needs to demonstrate 2 requirements, of which the landing climb gradient is the one that is relevant to this discussion. A twin transport category airplane needs to demonstrate a 2.1% climb gradient (
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-1...part-25#25.121 scroll down... § 25.121 (d) ) This needs to be demonstrated in N-1, gear up, critical engine inop, max. landing weight and a speed in accordance with the link.
The obstacle clearance is governed by different legislation. A obstacle clearance plane with a gradient of 1 in 40 needs to be provided for the missed approach, unless otherwise published. This equates to a 2.5% design gradient. For those of us who are still reading and paying attention... The plane manufacture thus needs to demonstrate a lower climb gradient than the obstacle gradient used in the design of the missed approach procedure. Moreover, the design gradient is for the entire missed approach and the missed approach climb gradient is more like a snapshot.
In other words, in case of a single engine missed approach you may not meet obstacle clearance. Under FAA law there is no specific guidance (see the first link), but there is a recommendation to provide flight crews with guidance on what to do in case of an engine out missed approach. My company provides me with this guidance.
Hope this helps.