I know nothing about the A320 except that it's an aeroplane certified to modern standards. Presumably, like any other transport category aeroplane, it must be capable of completing any flight from V1 speed to touchdown with the loss of a powerplant at any stage of that flight?
All fire drill checklists that I have seen have a statement 'land as soon as possible', so how could anyone justify a go-around unless due to a loss of visual contact or to prevent a collision? If an engine runs down on the A320 is autoland lost? If so, then I can understand that if the weather is Cat 3 and you don't get visual you will have a diversion on your hands. Obviously having a very bad day. But I can't think of any modern jet aircraft type where you could not continue to Cat 1 minima, doing very little other than increasing thrust and perhaps raising flaps one stage (depending on configuration and type) and on becoming visual carry on to touchdown.
Ditto with turbo prop aeroplanes - when flown to transport rules they must be able to sustain a failure on final approach and provided that the crew take the required action, must be able to continue to either a landing or a go-around. In Cat 1 or better weather the landing would normally pose the lesser risk. Some turboprops are more demanding than a jet in that the propeller may have to be manually feathered without delay, but that is a matter for the training department to address. If the exercise is practiced in the simulator, and if crew procedures are properly co-ordinated, it is not such an issue. If it were, the aircraft could not be certificated.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 21st Oct 2010 at 07:27.