? An EU chromatic product?
There is no certified performance data for a missed approach from a low energy state below minimums.
Not true; refer your QRH (or AFM), it is generally advisory information but provided as part of the certification package, and required under CS25.1581, refer AMC 25.1581 Aeroplane Flight Manual. There is no performance requirement established, but the figures are available. The figures are available for at least the B737, B747, B744, B767, B777,... whereas the A330 etc you will need to talk to your performance engineers to get the data, or check your AFM and/or ODM. For the A330, it's in the AFM, 6-4, (data on 6.13-6.14) and reiterates the requirements of CS25.121.
(If your "low energy" point is that the aircraft needs to be operated within it's usual approach envelope in order to affect a G/A on one engine, that is the norm. The aircraft cannot complete a G/A successfully at 10kts on the taxiway either, or at the terminal gate with the engines shut down and the APU running, (or on external power), all low [kinetic] energy states, nor is it expected to be able to do so. It is however able to (except in a few instances) achieve a missed approach from a OEI approach, including the big twins, up to late in the approach/landing. Once your speed is below Vref, your margin above VMCa with limited bank angle may be as limiting as your excess thrust available). Selecting gear up on most large aircraft will result in a short term increase in total drag, where gear doors are sequenced open from a closed position. And yes, adding thrust may take some time to reach rated G/A thrust, however the time you have noted is not from an approach idle setting and is also the maximum allowable not the usual time.
You would need to consider the worst case which could be below Vref, wheels on or close to the ground. The effect of ground contact on the ability to reconfigure. The time needed to spool up and accelerate back up to Vref.
FEhop
Why? On a B744 OEI, you can go around from touchdown, but you probably would have a hard time doing that in a B737. What is required is.... Your organisation needs to evaluate it's operation of aircraft and routes to assess the applicability of restrictions, or procedural guidance to satisfy 1.510(b), and 1.510(c). that can include a commitment point as it does for a 2 eng approach on a B747/744. If you want to start a thread on another topic apart from the one posed here, then please do so. perhaps quirky limitations of certification is one... this topic is about what procedure to follow on an OEI G/A below minima.
IEM OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
Landing – Destination and Alternate Aerodromes
See JAR-OPS 1.510(b) [and (c)]
[ ] [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] [ ].
Dear FE... What you and your airline do in order to comply with the requirement is entirely up to you and your airline. That there is a requirement to consider factors in relation to a OEI G/A to protect the operation is stated, in your EUR case in 1.510(b), and 1.510(c). How you do so, and whether you do is entirely up to you.
If you want to split hairs, then you may contemplate the use of
"should" from a compliance point, however, after the fact you need a pretty darn cogent reason in court if it goes pear shape and you consider you didn't need to comply with "should". The French Judiciary would be an interesting one to run that by.
All these considerations mean that without pre-prescribed criteria it is not possible to produce a standard operating procedure for single engined baulked landing(missed approach below DH) which regardless of FDRs post is why many EU operators do not cover this scenario in their SOP and yet operate quite legally. I checked 3 EU national flag carrier airlines OMs to confirm I wasn't going mad before making this reply.
It would be a very brave "post holder" who ascribes a cure all sop to an untested scenario.
“And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to bloom”. Anais Nin (1903 - 1977)
What you & your "3 x EU" carriers do to comply with 1.510 is dependent on their operation and route, and their understanding of their compliance obligations. You do at least appear now to understand some of the aspects to the OEI approach considerations.
Assuming that you are not just being contrarian, merely obtuse, and are having some difficulty understanding this fairly simple concept, I have written this post very slowly, in order that you can read it consequently. I do hope that helps.
"The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge". Elbert Hubbard, (1856-1915)
Cheers,
FDR,