Max angle - I don't agree with your items 1 and 2. However I agree with your choice of 2, though not entirely!
Here are some technical extracts from DOC 8168 in the Jeppesen, ATC Chapter: Departure Procedures - page 202 -
"A departure procedure will be established for each runway where instrument departures are expected to be used and will define a departure procedure for the various categories of aircraft based on ALL-ENGINE 'procedure design gradient' (PDG) of 3.3% or an increased PDG if required to achieve minimum obstacle clearance.
NOTE: Development of contingency procedures is the responsibility of the operator.
Unless otherwise promulgated, a PDG of 3.3% is ASSUMED."
Regarding Missed Approach Procedures-page217-
"Normally procedures are based on a nominal missed approach climb gradient of 2.5%."
"It is emphasized that the missed approach procedure which is based on the nominal climb gradient of 2.5% CANNOT be used by ALL aeroplanes when operating at or near Max Certificated Gross Mass and ENGINE OUT CONDITIONS. The operation of such aeroplanes needs SPECIAL CONSIDERATION at aerodromes which are critical due to obstacles on the missed approach area and MAY result in a SPECIAL PROCEDURE being established with a possible INCREASE in DA/DH or MDA/MDH"
So figure it out with your operator/state authority.
By the way, an extract from a wonderful book by Dr. Tony Kern's "Flight Discipline" (1998) page 18 - "Jeppesen is a company which merely publishes approaches given to them by the host nations and they are exceedingly clear on this point. In fact they publish a disclaimer stating that they 'do not review or approve the adequacy, reliability, accuracy or safety of the approach procedures they publish"
Real interesting inputs. Thanks all. Still no ATC input. Will ask some and post their 'technical know-how'.
