Interesting comments - all quite correct in their own way.
x38 seems to be the nearest to what I've been taught through the years - but that may not be the correct (or modern) answer, hence my question.
BEagle was, not surprisingly, spot on with what should happen in the ideal World - but A and C is probably correct in terms of "product liability".
BlueLine was perfectly correct in the IFR go around scenario - if the DA for an approach is 200' agl then, by that time, the pilot needs to be able to do the go around at that level - but by the time the pilot is carrying out asymmetric missed approaches in IFR then I would hope they have had more training than four to six hours on a light piston twin.
What I was saying about "personal minimums" was because there isn't a published figure in the POH for the average pilot (indeed, who could work out an "average" - and what factors would the below average pilot apply to that figure [assuming that they would even class themselves as 'below average']).
It was the discovery of the fact that certain schools want the commital height to be mandated as 200' agl for a brand new student on the aircraft - with only four or five hours on the class and type of aircraft when this part of the course comes up.
Would we expect the 4 hour multi engine piston student to carry out a go around as neatly and safely as a multi engine instructor with, perhaps, a few thousand hours on light piston twins??
This is where I wonder about the idea of a higher ACH until the individual has gained some experience - both of themselves as a pilot and of the performance capabilities of the aircraft (neither of which I think they have the brain power for when first confronted with the multi engine conversion course).
Would 500' agl be too high for the six hour muppet? Whilst the 200' is the ultimate aim for every individual (for all the reasons above) - should we teach it as a mandatory figure from approach number one??
Curious at BEagles comment about never going near a light twin - if you are prepared to fly single engine aircraft then there is no difference - for the reasons stated by A and C (if it's not working nicely as a single engine twin - then make it into a glider).