JammedStab
You've addressed the p13 issue, but what about your reference to a diagram on p17?
Also, the diag on p3 does not have any (flown) altitude references whatsover, so it does not give any illustration to the issue at all. The diagram also conflicts with para 3 of page 2 which says that the minimum altitude of 984 ft was reached at 6.4nm. The diagram shows this point as before the 6.5nm point.
I agree that the crew was sloppy and contravened the procedure. But my point is that it was some time before the go around instruction. As far as I can see at the time of the go -around instruction the aircraft was legal.
I also question whether or not the crew heard or understood the first go-around instruction. This question is heightened by the ATSB reports use of 2 contradictory references to the crews radio response to the go-around. In my opinion, this is enough to raise questions about the voracity of the report. If the crew did not hear or understand the initial go-around command, then the ATSB's criticism of the crew not obeying the go-around instruction is not valid.