This may not be strictly "on topic" but I'm not aware of any requirement to make a noise abatement go around, which raises the question with me of noise curfews and fine avoidance.
I've not personally experienced this, but I've heard numerous accounts of aircraft arriving early or late at noise curfewed airports, avoiding the airport-levied fines for early or late landings by making a missed approach. Surely this is counter-productive making much more noise than a landing would have?
There was a thread here a little while ago, the details of which I'm not certain of (Virgin Blue at Sydney?), where an aircraft arrived a few minutes late, made the missed approach and returned to the initial point of departure (Melbourne?).
I've experienced long-haul carriers waiting on the ground at point of departure (both as an ATCO and even more annoyingly as SLF) because an "on-time" departure would cause an early arrival due tail-winds, with the resultant penalty.
The world's airports are full of weird and wonderful alleged noise abatement rules:
Do you still have to be towed on to T4 stands at LHR after the 0600 curfew ends?
Quotas for runway usage at airports like Amsterdam which, when reached, make aircraft use noise-preferential, but not operationally preferential ie downwind runways.
Night curfew waivers - what's the point in issuing a waiver to some aircraft but not others of a similar noise impact?
Noise abatement SIDs - a SID that turns to avoid a built-up area by a few hundred metres but in reality, due to weather conditions or track-keeping limitations, does not perceptably (sp?) reduce the noise impact on residents, but the line on the map shows that aircraft should not fly over the affected area.
I apologise if this has turned into a bit of a rant, I blame jet-lag!