Interesting point about some airlines flying non-precision approaches as though they were precision approaches. If they do that, then they cannot use the published MDA as the go-around point as they will inevitably descend below MDA if they do.
If the non-precision approach specifies a notional glidslope technique, levelling at MDA will inevitably put you above the notional glideslope as you level off. But given no 'notional glideslope' restriction, an approach about 50-100 ft below the 'altitude for range' values allows you to be at MDA safely and legally on a 3 deg non-precision approach.
We used to teach RAF VC10 pilots to brief the technique they were going to use on a non-precision approach very carefully. Personally, I would note the height for range values as called but would plan to be slightly below them if a notional glideslope was non-mandatory. The actual assumed maximum descent rate in the design of a non-precision approach is, if I recall correctly, 400ft per mile which corresponds to 1000 ft/min at 150 kts. So a normal 750 ft/min descent rate would be entirely safe 'paralleling' the published 3 deg approach about 50-100 ft below it. Also had the inbound NDB radial set on the FMS and in the 'K model the HSI source switch to INS to give back-up CDI cross-track error information as we only had old-fasioned RMIs to fly the NDB approach on.
On reaching MDH we certainly used to fly level until the missed-approach point rather than just going around. This was great sport when flying a simulated 3-engine NDB (not NDB/DME) approach to RW 26 at Brize by night. If practised at any time before 2300 local, it gave you a good legal reason for going around at full power from 670 ft QFE right overhead the Stn Cdr's house.....
Just to let him know that his mighty Vickers Whisperjet crews were still at work at that time of night - even if he wasn't. Not permitted nowadays though
