Phantom Driver, as far as I can see it's 2,5 versus 3% to start with. You're absolutely right though it's somewhat academical and shouldn't be a problem in normal configuration which all procedures are designed for. Procedure design doesn't take EO conditions into account thus it's operators responsibility to assure performance requirements are met regardless of the configuration. That's the reason any reputable airline will nowadays have landing performance module on it's LPC and it's part of the approach briefing to calculate actual landing performance and go around. You brought up vivid memories about HKG with all it's crazy missed approaches. I believe on 07L the missed approach climb out gradient required is 7% or so till 4000ft clearly on the edge of SE capabilities of a twin, of course dependable on all the data implied.
That's the reason why EO procedures are flown in case of EO OPS instead of published go around where the performance isn't met. Another topic though.
But if the performance calcs (2.4%) allowed you to get airborne and climb out in that condition, the landing should be no problem where G/A is concerned,
I'll allow my self to disagree with you on that for following reason TO performance EU OPS class A is finished at 1500 ft AAL unless stated otherwise in charts or notams. GO Around climb gradient is a constant value to be maintained till the obstacle clearance of 164 ft is obtained in the final segment which may be well above 1500 ft AAL.
Purely academical approach not that critical in IBZ on a sunny CAVOK day.
Cheers.
