There's a thread on a related topic started by LOKE regarding the tracking requirements during a single engine go-around when the climb gradient may be less than that required for the published missed approach procedure.
Just imagine you are in the take-off position on the same runway you are approaching. What procedure would you follow if you had an engine failure at V1? If you imagine starting from a standstill at the threshold of the runway and getting away with an engine failure at V1, suffering an engine failure during a missed approach, at approach speed, at some point before or at the threshold during a landing to the same runway should be a breeze shouldn't it?
Answer these questions and you will be OK:
What are the tracking requirements for an engine failure at V1 from this runway?
At what altitude is acceleration to commence? This altitude is always calculated and written somewhere on your take-off charts aren't they? If not, the standard acceleration altitude nominated by your company would be appropriate.
For example, departing RWY34 in Wellington, NZ. We take-off over the bay. There is a significant ridge along the northern edge of the bay. The normal two engine departure has us accelerating on two engines at 1300ft. With an engine failure on take-off, the acceleration altitude is 2100ft.
So I do the RWY 34 ILS approach with these figures in mind incase I should have to do a missed approach. If there were no procedure specified for the runway during take-off, then the standard altitudes would apply to the go-around (1000 ft AGL two engines, 800 ft AGL one engine inoperative).
Makes sense really. The thing is though, you have to ask the question. If you haven't asked the question, the scenario hasn't occured to you, and so if the day comes that it happens to you (engine failure during a go-around) it's just dumb luck that you don't suffer contolled flight into terrain. It's great that you are asking the question. There are many that don't!
