I don't think you read the second one completely. It is pretty clear. Missed approach, go around, call it what you want, you gotta have fuel for it before you take off, no matter what the weather or the circumstance of the go around. If its a surprise, it doesn't matter, this LOI clarifies the fact that you have to have fuel for a go around or missed at your destination regardless of whether or not there is an alternate.

"Regardless of whether you are dispatched without a designated alternate airport, you must consider a possible missed approach at the destination airport (note that the rule does not say missed approach at alternate destination airport) in your required fuel calculations."

 

This is really basic instrument stuff. Yes. You have to have fuel to your destination. You have to have fuel for the "missed approach procedure" (at the destination only) and then fly to most distant alternate (assuming 2 alternates ) and then 45 min.

Example: Aspen. The missed approach is fuel consuming especially if your alternate is in the opposite direction the missed requires.

This is very different than an unknowable go around in Linkon Nebraska.

What if you did two go arounds? Are you in violation for not planning on that? The end of the FAA interpret says just that.

 

Jesus H. Read 121.647. Then read that LOI. It's black and white and not that hard to comprehend. Stop skipping to the last paragraph. It clearly addresses the scenario you mention (unplanned go around or missed) and clearly says "a" (singular) missed so your two missed approach question is answered. This is like arguing with my toddler.

 

I think you guys are arguing the wrong point. How I read his question is; his dispatch gives him enough legal fuel to destination, (including one go around because its the law), then alt, then 45. Then for whatever reason during flight (wind, vectors, etc) he ends up 2 minutes away from the airport at his min fuel, does he need to divert because its the law? The answer to that scenario is no he does not need to divert. The :45 minutes is for precisely that. He can land with 0 fuel if he encounters anything unforeseen and has to use it all up. The :45 minutes is a dispatch function, nothing more.

 

Bingo. (Not bingo fuel :-) What others are discussing are legitimate points but stray from what the OP asked.

To answer rvr1800's question about checking WX enroute, that is a shared responsibility, as remember the PIC and dispatcher both signed the release and are jointly responsible for the safe operation of the flight. Obviously if it's clear and a million for miles on end checking WX isn't much of a priority but let's say you're heading somewhere where forecast weather doesn't require an alternate but the METARS are showing a temp/dewpoint spread narrowing and you know from experience that this airport is prone to fog forming from the nearby lake and the terrain will keep said fog in the bowl (HPN). I'd be checking weather enroute to make sure we don't have a nice little surprise waiting when we get in range, and a DX worth his salt should be doing the same. (I say this, having sat in both seats...)

 

Easy there chief. I know they don't teach reading comprehension there but 647 referees specifically factoring in the "missed approach". Not a go-around. Meaning you must calculate the time and distance of a missed approach at your destination (not alternate) in your fuel burn.
The last paragraph you keep mentioning says exactly my point--
"Finally, if you fail to consider the MISSED APPROACH at the destination airport factor listed under § 121.647(c) in your fuel computations, you are in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations. On the other hand, there would be no illegality in using any or all of the 45-minute fuel supply required under § 121.639(c) provided that such use became necessary as a result of circumstances or events not reasonably foreseeable despite full compliance with §§ 121.639 and 121.647. See Letter to Schwind (July 9, 1979)."

The original question was if you go around and burn into your 45 min fuel should you go to your alternate? Are you in violation of you land with less than 45 min. The answer is clearly "no". You can use that 45 min provided it is safe.

 

So it appears you are in agreement that you need fuel (on top of reserve fuel) for a possible missed approach at the destination. If you have the fuel for a missed approach, you would therefore inherently have fuel for an unexpected go around. And by the same logic if you don't have fuel for a go around without tapping into your reserves, you therefore didn't have the fuel needed for the missed approach (unless something unforeseen happened earlier in the flight which cut into your planned fuel of course), which means you didn't have enough according to the FAA and this LOI.

 

What about a flight with no alternate? Do you need an extra "go-around" fuel in addition of 45 min? The answer is NO.

Like the other guy said. The OP's question has been answered. You and dispatch are jointly responsive to make sure Wx at destination and alternates are above required mins. If not , you can't continue and have to adjust your plan. You have to monitor dispatch to comply with this requirement.
Once at the destination you can burn into your reserve if needed as long as it is the safest route. A go around doesn't require you to go to an alternate. It's probable safer to stay at the airport where you know the conditions. If fog or some other Wx rapidly changes you are not in violation of you divert and land with less than 45 min. That's the answer.

 

Why don't you go argue it with the FAA. This is what they say about it, which is opposite what you keep claiming.
"Regardless of whether you are dispatched without a designated alternate airport, you must consider a possible missed approach at the destination airport (note that the rule does not say missed approach at alternate destination airport) in your required fuel calculations."
"Finally, if you fail to consider the missed approach at the destination airport factor listed under § 121.647(c) in your fuel computations, you are in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations."

here is the link again

 

Most 121 flight planning software has this built in.
Vectoring miles on the fuel from A to B. Approach fuel is for the
full approach. Let's divert because of a go around? Turns a min fuel day in to a emergency fuel day.