Land or missed, what's the right call in this situation?
 

Engine fail during approach. Definitely not a stable approach so go around.
Why is there any question?

How does it make the approach unstable? Bit of power on the remaining engine and some rudder is all you need to stay on track.

My airline states above 1000 agl go around and deal with it. Below continue for a landing. I think it hits the sweet spot.

And can somebody copy or state what Airbus says in their (training-) manuals.........

As someone who was actually hand flying an aircraft at around 1,000' on a visual approach at night onto the northerly runway at Melbourne's Tullamarine Airport when an engine went bang in a big way I can assure you the decision whether to go-around or land was made very quickly. The choice was go-around with an unknown but clearly major failure or land around 60 seconds later.

What my company advises (B737NG)
Engine Failure On Approach

• Control A/C smoothly with RUDDER and TRIM the A/C
• Adjust thrust on operating engine to maintain speed
• If unable to maintain speed
• Flaps 15
• Speed VREF30 + 15 (Fly outer bug)
• FLAP INHIBIT switch to INHIBIT

If necessary Go-around

Because almost nothing in aviation, be it machinery or people, ever gives you a complete picture...you fill in the gaps by whatever means you can think of.

Every engine failure is not a catastrophy requiring to land on the same approach. When you are still doing ECAM the approach cannot be called stabilized. Approach starts at IAF. If you complete the actions by 1000ft (at least engine secured) you could go ahead and land. Otherwise discontinue the approach complete the procedure come back and land. Unless there is a good justification to do little bit of this and little bit of that together is not a good idea.

I think that's a bit black and white.
Even if I haven't secured the broken engine, if I have completed the get-it-flying actions as per #12, I would feel justified in continuing for the reasons given in #6.
This exact scenario has caught out at least one crew.
Even if I'm on fire, I'd rather be on fire on the ground.

As a retired aviation professional and a frequent SLF it is quite fascinating to read the above opinions. I'd feel a lot safer if you all gave the same answer! ;)

@Mods : should we merge the thread with the same one on Techlog ?

There is no right or wrong answer in this scenario, as long as any crew action does not infringe the manufacturer's / company rules, which is not the case in this situation. There can be arguments as to whether option A is better than option B based on a set of circumstances but both of them are safe.
For example in my company we do have provisions for engine failures on final approach and provided we do have VMC conditions, we can secure the engine through the ECAM down to 500 ft AGL, last gate. Procedures in other companies can be different for many very valid reasons.

I said as long as you can justify to do it differently it's OK.

Given that the only definitive information given in the AvHerald article on which to reach a judgement was that the aircraft "was on final approach to Islamabad's runway 10R when the RH engine emitted a bang and streaks of flames", I'd suggest that a fair number of other variables also went into the crew's decision that we're not party to, so varying opinions on what to do from PPRuNers shouldn't come as a surprise.

It depends on what they are calling final approach, they could still be 10 miles out with time to sort it out.
OTOH it could mean they are at the final 500 foot call which would be rather hairy.