So what is it? Is there a problem with go arounds that I'm missing?
One of the more unfortunate aspects in many airlines is the captain is required to fill out a form for management explaining in detail why he made a missed approach or aborted a landing. Despite tongue-in-cheek assurances to the contrary, it is not uncommon for the captain to be nailed to the wall.
I stress this is only with certain airlines; but it happens.
Under those circumstances it is not surprising that the captain is hell-bent on landing even though a go-around would be mandated if the aircraft was not stable by a certain point on the approach.
During a court case after the Silk Air B737 tragedy (the only way to describe those circumstances) evidence was presented that on one occasion specifically, the captain was hopelessly high during an approach and attempted to lose height by applying full alternating aileron on short final in order to use the spoilers to increase the rate of descent. The first officer urged the captain to go around but the captain refused. In desperation the F/O pushed open the throttles and forced the go-around. The captain then completed a split-arse circuit and landed. He told the F/O to keep quiet about the incident and not to put in a report as he (the captain) would put in a report. But the captain did not report the incident. Management were alerted later by passenger and cabin crew stories.
Why didn't the captain put in a report on the incident? Loss of face, maybe? Fear of management repercussions? (definately). Much depends on the culture in the airline and indeed of the particular individual in the cockpit.
Here we are talking not about a bad weather missed approach but more a cocked up approach gone wrong.