Story ID: 
Honeywell FMS Guided Visual Approaches Add Capability
By: Matt Thurber
Caption: New airports and integrations give pilots more options for mitigating risk
Word Count: 1146
Honeywell continues to add more procedures to its FMS guided visual (FGV) approach series while coming up with new features such as all chart information on one page, installation in flight simulators, and integration of the FGV content pack into the ForeFlight Mobile app.
Nearly 600 customers are using Honeywell’s FGVs, and there are about 20 of these approaches available, including some for non-U.S. airports. More are being added, and Honeywell has hired additional personnel to speed up the process of creating FGVs.
Airlines have been using FGVs for decades, so the process is not new, but it wasn’t used by business aircraft operators on a wide scale until Honeywell began developing FGVs for its customers. Anyone could develop FGVs for their own flight operation’s use, but the process requires specialized knowledge and can be resource-intensive. NetJets, for example, has developed its own set of approaches for its exclusive use. The Honeywell FGV database, which is available for a variety of Honeywell avionics-equipped aircraft, costs an extra $2,000 per year per aircraft and gives operators full access to all of the FGV approaches.
The idea behind FGVs is to mitigate the risk of flying visual approaches to runways that are constrained by obstacles or operational restrictions, or have other risky characteristics, according to Carey Miller, Honeywell senior technical sales manager. An example is Honeywell’s first FGV, for the New York-area Teterboro Airport (KTEB) ILS Runway 6, circle to Runway 1 visual approach. When winds are from the northwest, pilots are instructed to fly the ILS Runway 6 approach but then circle to land on Runway 1 after crossing the TORBY intersection. 
For many pilots, flying a visual approach is no big deal; after all, that’s how they learned to fly. At KTEB, when flying this particular maneuver, pilots might feel the need to remain higher up because of the nearby stadium and multiple radio antennas. However, to ensure the airplane is at the correct altitude when straightening out on final approach, it is necessary to turn and constantly descend; otherwise, it’s easy to be too high on final and have to either go around or chop the power and try to salvage the landing by standing on the brakes and employing noisy thrust reversers.
For most visual approaches, there is no lateral or vertical guidance to the runway end, and pilots have to make up their own process to arrive safely. FGVs solve that problem by not only providing that guidance but coding it into the FMS so that it can be flown coupled to the autopilot to produce the smoothest and safest approach possible, given any constraints that apply.
Another example is Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport (KTRM) near Palm Springs, California. An operator flying Gulfstream G650s into KTRM kept logging flight operational quality assurance (FOQA) events, with exceedances of parameters while maneuvering to land. With no control tower, lots of training traffic, and approach controllers keeping aircraft high over Los Angeles and Palm Springs, followed by a high-speed descent, the FOQA events were piling up, and the operator asked Honeywell for help.
Honeywell developed a guided visual approach for KTRM’s Runway 35—basically, what looks like a simple 180-degree left turn from a waypoint opposite the point of touchdown, with a constant descent that lines the aircraft up on final with a standard 3-degree glidepath.
There is an IFR approach to Runway 35, the RNAV (GPS) RWY 35 approach, but that would require flying at least 18 nm further south to the initial fix. Another alternative, which this operator tried, is to build a pseudo-approach, a flight plan in the FMS with waypoints and altitudes that provide a safe path. This doesn’t always work well, and results in flying track-to-fix, where the aircraft flies straight and level between fixes, then banks, then straight and level, bank, et cetera. Such an approach is much less effective and not as safe as an FGV, which uses radius-to-fix legs and a constant bank and descent path throughout the procedure and can be flown smoothly when coupled to the autopilot. This is far more comfortable for passengers and, especially at unfamiliar airports, allows the pilots to look outside for traffic or other hazards instead of fiddling with the autopilot and FMS.
After implementing the Honeywell RNAV H RWY 35 FGV at KTRM, the operator’s FOQA events at that airport dropped to zero, according to Miller.
FGV approaches simplify flying visual approaches at the airports for which Honeywell has developed these procedures, helping reduce the risk of visual illusions at night, such as loss of orientation on a dark, moonless night with gusty winds or the illusion of flying faster underneath clouds. Where there are dark mountains near the airport, as there are at Scottsdale, Arizona (KSDL) Runway 21, flying there at night can be challenging, but with the FGV, pilots are guided on a smooth, low-bank path to the runway end with plenty of space away from the mountains.
Some of the Honeywell FGVs were developed after accidents occurred, highlighting the difficulty of flying visual approaches at some airports. Others were stimulated by local constraints, such as Seletar Airport (WSSL) in Singapore, where pilots must thread the needle between border airspace and defense-related restrictions. “That was probably one of the toughest guided visual approaches I’ve seen so far,” he said.
Another benefit of FGVs is a significant reduction in stress. As Miller pointed out, when pilots after a long flight face gusty winds and no IFR approach guidance to the most suitable runway, having an FGV to fly adds another layer of safety and stress reduction. “That’s what we’re trying to do,” he said.
A new FGV for Runway 33 at Aspen-Pitkin County Airport (KASE) will be released shortly, and this gives pilots an alternative for landing in Aspen when the tailwind is too strong for Runway 15. “There was a bunch of customer input designing this,” Miller said.
Recent developments for the Honeywell FGVs include the ability to view the charts on iPads by loading the Honeywell content pack. This makes the FGVs selectable from the ForeFlight procedure advisor and viewable on the ForeFlight moving map.
Honeywell has also consolidated FGV information into one chart, so when pulling up the chart on a cockpit display, all the necessary information is visible without having to access a second notes page. This feature will be available in August. 
Honeywell has worked with FlightSafety International and CAE to incorporate FGV approaches in their simulators for aircraft equipped with compatible Honeywell avionics. This will facilitate training on FGV approaches. “If somebody wants to try these out before buying, they can do that in the simulator,” Miller said.