The problem with go-arounds is most pilots do not expect to miss. They have
mins, they are proficient pilots, they can fly the approach. This "landing
expectancy" is brought out in the observation that most pilots will brief
the missed approach but ask them even general questions about the miss a few
minutes after the brief and they will almost invariably be able to tell you
little if anything about the possible miss. Why? They don't expect to miss.
This has caused me some pain in the past but I will shoot myself in the
foot again by saying there is NOTHING on the approach plate that points to a
landing. True, the approach aligns the airplane in a position so a safe
landing can be completed if one sees the field (considering Cat I or Cat II)
but the full approach procedures continues through the miss to the holding
fix. Most pilots brief verbally and mentally to minimums and everything
after that is just so much blather.
My personal approach (no pun intended) is to go to mins... seeing nothing we
will *continue* the instrument procedure, miss and follow the discussed
plan. We will also review the miss and see if, in fact, we can fly it.
Sometimes, the miss is not feasible or practical and if so, we advise
approach/tower of our intentions. This seems to work quite good.