In my outfit they survey each airfield we can fly into. Each airfield has a port page and this document details any different procedures required to meet obstacle clearance for T/O and G/A.
Salut ! Most places one can find existing survey data to suit but, if needs be .. it's a theodolite and kit over the shoulder and into the bush.
The reputable operators have always been thus.
Aviation is all about risk management.
Indeed, as is every activity for which we choose to be involved. However, risk assessment and management includes corporate risk .. hence the better operators invest in minimising the probability of the adverse publicity associated with a significant mishap.
If we adopt procedures which cater for the exceptionally low risk of having an engine failure during the GA, then we may run into other practical problems and risks.
If you are suggesting that we can ignore events with a rational risk assessment similar, for instance, to the Design Standards then I'm OK with that .. however, the corporate assessment would consider the cost/benefit as an input into whether the existing organisation can/should do things such as missed approach terrain performance assessment ...
To keep the same procedure for all engines operating GAs as the EO procedure, would involve no thrust reduction nor acceleration until the first stop altitude.
That's a simple approach to life and, often, not the optimal way to address the problem .. no reason (where practical) why the AEO procedure can't be analysed to provide for keys throughout to shift to an OEI procedure .. a case of balancing complexity against flight standards commonsense as well ... what I would be suggesting is that the other extreme of just blasting off into the AEO procedure without anything prearranged in the case one goes quiet is pretty silly.
In my ops engineering work in another life, my approach to strategy was very much coloured by my parallel time in the cockpit ....
Is that a wise procedure to adopt in busy airspace when ALT busts would be more likely?
That's just one more constraint for the ops eng and flight standards assessment to factor into the final procedure.
I assume each of your destination airfields has a published EO proceedure for take off?
That should be the case only where necessary. Generally, I would expect to see
(a) some runways with the AEO miss being fine OEI
(b) some runways would have a generic escape procedure for simplicity
(c) where terrain etc., dictates, the remainder ought to have detailed OEI analyses in a manner similar to takeoff work.
in the event of a G/A following an EO approach, what is wrong with briefing and flying that profile rather than the published MAP?
Indeed, it would be a tad silly to do otherwise if such is promulgated .. ?