[ QUOTE ]
My question is: why didn't you choose the precision approach instead of the non precision? You obviously had time to troubleshoot and feather the engine, you could have levelled off, declared an emergency, get vectors for the ILS and still make it safely... No single engine go around at 800 ft on a light twin; and you ended up doing the ILS anyways, since you knew it was operational.
[/ QUOTE ] When I made up the hypothetical scenario, I was thinking of losing an engine near the MDA, 1000 feet, a few miles prior to the VDP.
You're making too many assumptions about the conditions and timing. All I was trying to do is offer up a couple of scenarios where going missed might be prudent. I didn't say day/night, icing/dry, max/min gross, and about 100 other factors. It's a hypothetical example to help see that there are some scenarios where a go around is reasonable.
It's easy to add things to any hypothetical scenario if you're really looking to bias the outcome in one direction. For instance, if I told you the engine was on fire, then by all means you'd land immediately at all cost.
Instead of adding conditions to the hypothetical scenario that would make a go-around a bad idea, try to see if you can envision a scenario where you could understand (but perhaps not agree with) the point I'm trying to make.
Clearly we don't agree on the performance aspects of a twin doing a missed approach on one engine. I don't know what type of twin you fly, what climate you fly in, but I'm sure it's different than mine. In my environment, I have a reasonable climb on one engine. That's why I mention the 9950' airstart. The significants of this example is that most people wouldn't think a light twin would have this performance. Knowing this performance, and having a lot of experience on one engine, gives me an option than many would not have.