The circumstances in my last post are what they are referring to. The grey area is obviously that you can still legally land whilst executing a missed approach if you break visual and are in a position to conduct a visual approach.
If you go back to my very first post, I asked a legitimate question: when must you legally start to climb in a missed approach if you execute it prior to the MAPt? There was clearly a reason I asked the question, and I stated as such. I went on to expand upon the reasons and scenarios for asking that question. I even suggested (in my first post) that if you were off track you could very well hit an obstacle.
I believed I had covered most bases and was entitled to ask the question of my fellow commercial pilots. But like a lot of prune threads, it quickly degenerated into chest-thumping and name-calling without actually addressing the original question.
I expected that. And here we are. I have done the research in as far as reading the regs - I did that even before I posted here. Which was why I asked - in my very first post - was there something I had missed.
The answer, as it turned out, is no. Yes, I can ask CASA, but we've all asked CASA questions before and received answers that confused the issue even more than when it was first proposed!
In a real-life scenario - such as the last one I posted - a GPS goes down to .1nm, or 185m. Half-scale deflection is about 90m. You could be 100m off centre-line at 5nm out and have to execute a missed approach. The reality is, you're probably not going to hit any obstacles if you level off and reintercept your track enroute to the MAPt. If you happen to break visual - all good and well. But do you legally need to climb before the MAPt? It appears not.
While I do not advocate the above, I can see the reasoning behind it. I've tried to explore that here - for anyone who was interested. But some posters here appear to be more interested in attacking the poster than properly considering what has been put forth.
Why is that? Human nature, I guess.