As the Gulfstream G650 descended on the ILS Runway 6 glidepath towards Teterboro Airport, we could see MetLife stadium next to the TORBY waypoint. Because we had been cleared for the ILS 6, circle to Runway 1 approach, we knew the drill: cross DANDY at 1,500 feet, descend to 1,300 feet and turn right after TORBY, keep an eye on the radio towers, hang a left around the stadium, then continue descending while lining up with Runway 1. The goal is to roll out at the proper altitude and speed so the approach would be stabilized. And all this while the winds were blowing at 18 gusting to 30 knots from the northwest, conditions that make this approach the go-to, provided the weather isn’t below IFR minimums.
With a smoothness that seemed unusual in such a large airplane and at bank angles never higher than 20 degrees, the G650 adroitly pirouetted around the stadium in a constant yet gentle descent, then smoothly straightened out. The result: a perfectly executed visual approach that lined us up on the PAPI glidepath and brought us neatly to 200 feet at no more than Vref +10, where I punched the autopilot off and, at 50 feet, pulled the power back and landed comfortably near the aiming point with plenty of runway left to come to a smooth stop.
We weren’t in an airplane but were flying a series of FMS-guided visual (FGV) approaches in FlightSafety International’s G650 level-D simulator at the Long Beach, California learning center.
Honeywell has developed FGV approaches at about a dozen airports and is working on more, to provide a safer path—either hand-flown or on autopilot—to runway ends that offer some additional challenge and risk to business jet pilots. The resulting paths use radius-to-fix legs “which provide a precise track over the ground to align the aircraft while observing known airspace restrictions,” according to Honeywell.
Most airports have instrument approach procedures that align the aircraft with a runway end, but not all runways—especially those constrained by terrain or airspace restrictions—have an IFR approach. Visual approaches can be more expeditious, but they lack guidance, and pilots must rely on their skill and judgment to keep the aircraft on the right path. This doesn’t always work out, as demonstrated by the crash of Asiana Flight 214 on July 6, 2013, at San Francisco International Airport on a clear day, where the Boeing 777’s pilots seemed confused about exactly how to fly a visual approach without any formal guidance and stalled on short final.
The FGV approaches are designed to mitigate risks inherent in visual approaches by providing lateral and vertical guidance that results in a stable approach. Honeywell has made these visual approaches available as a subscription service that adds them to FMS databases in qualifying aircraft. These include the Bombardier Global Express; Citation Sovereign and X; Falcon 900EX EASy, 900C/EX, 2000 EASy, 7X, and 8X; Embraer 170/190; Gulfstream GV, G450/G550, G500/G600, and G650; Hawker 4000; and Pilatus PC-24 and PC-12 NG/NGX. Honeywell is working with CAE and FlightSafety to add the FGV approach database to the simulators for these aircraft.
As of early May, Honeywell had developed FGV approaches for 10 runways at nine airports, and four more runways at three new airports were in development, for Singapore Seletar (WSSL, Runway 3/21), Westchester County (KHPN, Runway 34), and Napa County (KAPC, Runway 24).
FGV in the Simulator
During the G650 simulator flight, Honeywell senior technical sales manager Carey Miller and I flew FGV approaches into Teterboro (KTEB, Runway 1), Van Nuys (KVNY, Runway 34L), and Scottsdale (KSDL, Runway 21).
Honeywell’s Teterboro RNAV H Rwy 1 FGV approach guides pilots to Runway 1 when clearance is given to fly the ILS 6, circle to Runway 1 at TORBY. Because this is a circling approach to the runway from TORBY, special instructions to set up the approach are included in a detailed briefing sheet to ensure the localizer is monitored during the initial phase of the approach.
I flew the approach twice, with the G650 simulator set with strong and gusty northwest winds to mimic conditions when pilots will be given the ILS 6, circle to Runway 1 clearance. I flew the first attempt by hand while Miller co-piloted and FlightSafety G650 program manager Justin White ran the simulator.
With the G650’s smooth autothrottle engaged, managing the flight path was easy, and I was able to follow the flight director’s guidance as we flew the FGV approach. The turns after TORBY and around MetLife Stadium were gentle, and after leveling the wings on final, the G650 was perfectly positioned on the glidepath at the reference speed of 116 knots plus a little more for the wind. We did a go-around, then repositioned and returned for the same approach using the autopilot.
This time, the G650 flew a perfect ILS 6, circle to Runway 1 approach, much smoother than my hand flying. The shallow bank angles and smooth, continuous descent would have been unnoticeable to passengers. After lining up on final to Runway 1, I clicked off the autopilot at 200 feet agl and landed with plenty of runway remaining.
I can’t help contrasting this with an experience a few years ago when I was a passenger in a jet flying into Teterboro using the visual ILS 6 and circle to Runway 1 clearance. The pilot must have felt that the visual approach required some radical maneuvering because he whipped the airplane around in much steeper banks, which I now realize were unnecessary. There is also the poorly flown Learjet that crashed on May 15, 2017. The pilots turned well past TORBY and banked too steeply trying to line up with Runway 1 and stalled.
Teterboro Airport has published guidance on its website to help pilots flying this visual approach, highlighting FAA-created waypoints that can be plugged into an FMS or navigator.
At Van Nuys, I flew two approaches to Runway 34L, which is rarely used, only when the Santa Ana winds are blowing. White set the wind to 300 at 15, gusting to 20 knots. I flew the first approach by hand, and this approach, when entry is made from the northwest, mimics a traditional lefthand downwind-base-final traffic pattern. Many pilots might think such a pattern is simple, but the northwest wind is going to push aircraft toward the runway unless pilots compensate. The guidance using Honeywell’s RNAV H Rwy 34L makes the process so much simpler and safer.
The second, autopilot-connected approach was again much smoother, but in both cases, the guidance kept our bank angles below 20 degrees and also ensured that we didn’t unconsciously allow the wind to blow the G650 closer to the runway on the downwind leg. If this had happened, we might have resorted to a steeper bank to try to line up with the runway, a highly risky maneuver that was one of the factors in the deadly crash of a Challenger 605 on July 26, 2021, at Truckee Tahoe Airport in California.
At Scottsdale, I got a firsthand look at how hand-flying a visual approach without guidance could get a flight crew into trouble. One way of approaching Runway 21 from the west requires flying along the edge of mountainous terrain, and at night it’s almost impossible to see the ridge lines. Of course, it’s visible on the G650’s synthetic vision, which helps, but I still felt compelled to hug the terrain on the left side of the airplane while maneuvering before turning right to line up with Runway 21. At one point, I got to within 900 feet of the ground before turning on final.
For the second approach, we used the guidance from the RNAV H Rwy 21 visual approach with the autopilot on, and the difference was stark. This approach kept us well away from the terrain but still generated a shallow bank as it turned the G650 on final for a perfectly stabilized approach.
Subscriptions to the Honeywell database with the FGV approaches cost $2,000 per year, and pilots can view videos about flying the procedures at the company’s Pilot Gateway website.
Of course, pilots could go through the trouble of trying to build their own approaches by creating user waypoints for their FMS, but getting it all to work out with the proper descent is challenging.
A Pilot’s Experience
Corporate pilot Mark McIntyre did just that for a flight to Split in Croatia, which worked out well, he said. He was trying to build something similar for Runway 35 at Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport near Palm Springs, California, but then he found out about the Honeywell FGV approaches.
“There is high terrain to the south, and it’s a black hole. There is a PAPI but it’s challenging, especially at night,” he said. “We started playing with it, building the waypoints and flying with the autoflight system on. It did well and put us on downwind and started our descent before turning base with a nice arc and a 3-degree descending path, but it didn’t always line up with final. It worked well but it wasn’t perfect.”
At a Gulfstream operators’ conference, McIntyre learned about the Honeywell FGV approaches and signed up for the database subscription. “It’s taken the concern about unstabilized approaches away,” he said. “Both pilots remain heads up, it rolls out wings level at 700 feet agl on the PAPI and on centerline, you click off the automation and land. It takes out all the anxiety and sweat and all of the risk.”
McIntyre and his fellow pilots have trained in-house to fly the FGV approaches as well as in the FlightSafety G650 simulator. “We had all the pilots fly in the simulator to gain confidence,” he said. “The [approaches are] so intuitive, I don’t feel like there’s a lot of training required, as long as you recognize that the controller knows nothing about it and they’re not going to clear you for it. It’s visual; use the procedure to give you a visual route. The automation works just like a charted IFR approach procedure. Arm the approach and capture [the glidepath]. In terms of standard operating procedures and automation management, it’s familiar and makes it easy to implement. We’re not having to train something different.”
Although some pilots wondered how it is possible to fly a formal procedure when cleared for a visual approach, they soon appreciated the benefits of the FGV approaches. “[Being a visual approach], it doesn’t mean we can’t use automation to help,” McIntyre said. “Once they experienced it, they said, ‘Why would I do it any other way?’
“We’re so good at discipline and precision in so many of the things we do,” he explained. “And yet an unaided visual approach remains a very imprecise maneuver. Now we have a tool where precision and risk mitigation employed in every aspect of our operation are finally brought to the visual approach. It takes all the guesswork out of it. It’s going to be a huge safety enhancement. Once people see them, why wouldn’t you use it? It would almost be remiss not to use it.”
McIntyre is looking forward to the release of the Seletar visual approach. “It’s really constrained by airspace, you’re always pushing to fly a close-in downwind and tight base, and that makes it challenging. That airport has always been problematic."
It’s important to note that pilots should not ask air traffic controllers for clearance to fly the FGV approaches. Honeywell makes it clear that these are not IFR approaches. When given a visual approach clearance, it’s up to the pilot to figure out how to approach the runway, and if pilots want to fly the FGV procedure, they can do so without further clearance. The controller might just be impressed at the preciseness of the resulting visual approach, not realizing that it is based on a formal procedure.
The beauty of the FGV approaches is that, once loaded in the FMS, guidance is available either for hand flying or the autopilot, freeing up pilot attention for more important tasks. Flying the FGV approach on autopilot is just like flying an IFR approach, and the outcome is exactly the same, positioning the airplane perfectly lined up with the runway end in a stabilized state. The approaches employ gentle banks and maintain clearance from terrain, obstacles, and airspace constraints. But more importantly, the approaches give pilots the option of flying a precise, well-designed procedure instead of trying to figure out how to get to the runway end and remain stabilized without any guidance.