PBY, yes thanks, have seen the study, and had passed it on to some carriers.
Flight data analysis shows that the go-around manoeuvre is generally performed safely enough but not always precisely.
This is in terms of:
- pitch attitude achieved vice required,
- timely configuration changes, (flaps retracted to g/a setting, gear up) and,
- precise altitude capturing and route tracking.
Overall, power set for the g/a, and speed control do not seem to be a problem.
Often, (from sim experiences), handling & performance of the g/a manoeuvre can get side-lined and stopped mid-stream if the PM/PNF does not make the "positive climb/rate" call in a timely manner, (or omits it entirely). Inevitably this leaves the gear down until someone wonders about the noise and power settings...
In terms of cockpit management, prioritizing actions sometimes gets lost amidst the important but definitely-secondary nav and communications requirements. Flying the airplane is the first (and only) short-term requirement, (first ten seconds, say), and when things are well in hand ensuring navigation is being done.
Some will disagree with this view because you can't just fly straight ahead to 3000ft and airspace must be respected. Ideally these are done almost simultaneously but the first priority is still full control of the airplane.
I say this because go-arounds that result in an accident result almost exclusively from a loss of S.A/loss of control, (vise CFIT, mid-air collision, mechanical/technical failure, encounters with serious weather phenomenon, etc.)
I realize that some g/a required routings, altitudes and perhaps speeds are complex due to the proximity of terrain or other airports and their airspace requirements. But full control of the aircraft is primary.