Hi.
While on a normal approach the application of an OEI procedure in relation to a rejected landing is excessive, a loss of engine and a rejected landing or vv can happen. For an OEI approach, it would be prudent to ensure that the rejected landing case performance is assured.
The FAA position is it ACCEPTS OEI procedures, JAR/EU OPS is somewhat different.
Under PANS OPS, (ICAO Doc 8168) procedures do occasionally have altered minima due to G/A gradient issues, HKG 07L/R ILS being one example. (Under TERPS, I am not certain that is to be the case).
An OEI missed approach commenced from the published minima should usually be assured terrain separation by design, (but with the broad caveat of IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)], shown below).
In the case that the aircraft descends below the minima during the missed approach, that is part of the design for DH operations. Where a late go around/rejected landing occurs, then it is prudent under FAA and required by JAR to follow a procedure that assures terrain separation. Separation is not assured by TERPS/PANS OPS in such a case, so it is reasonable to follow the OEI procedure if published. If no OEI procedure is published, and the operation is a Part 121/135 or similar, JAR-OPS1/EU-OPS 1, then the operator is obliged to have assessed OEI procedures, and no procedure should mean no obstacles exist that affect OEI operations.... in a properly functioning system at least. If you end up going into an airport not analysed by your company on one engine, I would suggest a fairly close look at the charts for obstacles, or ask for information from ATC if time/workload permits.
[ ] [The required missed approach gradient may not be achieved] by all aeroplanes when operating at or near maximum certificated landing mass and in engine-out conditions. Operators of such aeroplanes should consider mass, altitude and temperature limitations and wind for the missed approach [ ]. [As an alternative method,] an increase in the decision altitude/height or minimum descent altitude/height [and/or a contingency procedure (see JAR-OPS 1.495(f)) providing a safe route and avoiding obstacles, can be
approved] [ ]. IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
Do note that the OEI procedure does not assure the same terrain clearance that PANS OPS/TERPS procedures do for normal operations.
Stuff does happen, and usually at the most inopportune time.
(The certification criteria for the aircraft performance is in FAR 25 and CS-25, and the procedures for showing compliance are well stated in FAA AC 25-07A, and CS-25 Sec 2-ACJ).
"And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. But come;
Here, as before, never, so help you mercy,
How strange or odd soe'er I bear myself,
As I perchance hereafter shall think meet
To put an antic disposition on,
That you, at such times seeing me, never shall,
With arms encumber'd thus, or this headshake,
Or by pronouncing of some doubtful phrase,
As 'Well, well, we know,' or 'We could, an if we would,'
Or 'If we list to speak,' or 'There be, an if they might,'
Or such ambiguous giving out, to note
That you know aught of me: this not to do,
So grace and mercy at your most need help you, Swear."
William Shakespeare,
Hamlet, Act I Scene V (1564-1616)
Links:
AC 120-91 - Airport Obstacle Analysis - Document Information
References:
FAA AC120-OBS-11,
AC120-91 (by AFS-400)
FAA Order 8260.3, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)
FAA Form 8260-10
JAR-OPS 1.510
JAR-OPS 1.495
JAR-AWO
JAR-OPS 1 AMC & IEN
CS-25
FAR 25
FAA AC 25-07A
CS-25 Sec 2-ACJ
IEM OPS 1.495(f) Engine failure procedures
JAR-OPS 1.495(f)
IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)] Landing – Destination and Alternate Aerodromes
JAR-OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]