The dreaded visual approach

Ask the same pilot the same question once the type rating is completed and mentoring has begun, and the answer will likely be different and to the effect of, “I just can’t nail the visual approach yet.” I can hear the laughter from piston pilots wondering, “What could be easier than a visual?” Yet every pilot I’ve mentored has struggled with mastering the visual approach long after their “checkride” approaches were acceptable.

Why is this? It’s largely an unfortunate byproduct of one of the factors that makes flying jets so safe: how tightly scripted its profiles are. On a typical precision approach with a vectored intercept onto an 8- to 10-mile final, a properly trained pilot knows exactly when to be at “X” speed, and have “Y” configuration with respect to flap and gear extension. The profile can be thought of as a perfectly optimized recipe developed by the manufacturer for execution of the approach: Follow the recipe and the result will be pleasing every time.

In contrast, a visual approach can feel like trying to whip up dinner with the dredges of a mostly empty pantry—not a lot of guidance, and sometimes nothing good to work with. Being cleared for the visual from downwind or base, often from an altitude hundreds or even thousands of feet above pattern altitude, requires creativity and improvisation that is not practiced in highly scripted simulator training.

There are some tips, however, a pilot can heed to make visuals more stress free. First is recognizing that most new pilots in this situation will find themselves on short final with an excess, not a shortage, of energy. Unfortunately, it is much harder to take energy, either in the form of airspeed or altitude, out of a jet aircraft than out of a propeller-driven airplane, be it a piston or turboprop.

For this reason, often the first reaction to being cleared for a visual should be to bring the thrust levers to idle. Slowing the aircraft so that landing gear and at least partial flaps can be extended results in a much draggier and more easily managed aircraft. Thrust can always be added back if it turns out the energy state isn’t excessive.

An analysis by the Citation Jet Pilots association (CJP) of 8,500 flights made by 70 owner-flown Citations found that one in 50 visual approaches exceeded 1,800 feet per minute (fpm) sink below 1,000 feet above field level, well over the target maximum sink of 1,000 fpm. In some cases, the sink rate reached as high as 2,500 fpm as the pilots attempted to shed excess height during the last 3 miles of a visual approach. These high sink rates were only found on visual approaches where the pilot approached the runway from a downwind or base position; they were never seen during the execution of a published instrument approaches or a straight-in visual.

Visual cues are difficult to interpret when approaching at 90 degrees or more to the runway, and often pilots will turn final to find themselves higher than anticipated. Further, the sight picture of a light jet flown on speed and on a proper descent angle is very different from a piston aircraft at the same point in space, so a pilot new to jet aircraft won’t have the same ability to rely on instinct to manage the descent they would in their former aircraft.

The next, equally important tip is to remember that just because the approach is a visual does not mean electronic guidance shouldn’t be used. At a minimum, if the runway has an instrument approach, it should be loaded and used for reference. Often better, however, is the ability of modern flight management systems (FMS) to create a customized visual approach.

These FMS-created visual “approaches” provide lateral and vertical guidance to any runway in their database, even if no instrument approach exists. More capable systems can customize the descent angle to match the vertical guidance provided by a PAPI/VASI should one be present (many are not set to 3 degrees because of close-in obstructions), and allow for the placement of the base-to-final turning fix at any pilot-specified distance from the runway. Setting the final fix no closer than 3 nm from the runway threshold ensures the aircraft will be wings-level on final by 500 feet above field level, which is the widely accepted target for approach stabilization in visual conditions.

With these systems the pilot can intercept a base leg at the proper distance and altitude from the runway so as to have the turn onto final occur precisely on the desired descent angle, greatly reducing the risk of an unstabilized visual approach. In high-workload environments such as a busy traffic pattern, the aircraft’s autopilot can be coupled to both the lateral and vertical guidance until the turn onto final is completed, greatly freeing up the pilot’s attentional resources to manage energy and maintain situational awareness.

Because visual approaches don’t fall into one of the typical scenarios practiced in sim training, new jet pilots often display a reflexive reaction to “return to basics” and hand-fly once cleared for the visual. For an inexperienced pilot this greatly increases the workload, and usually decreases the quality of the approach. Even just using the autopilot in the most basic heading and vertical speed modes will let the pilot focus on keeping the big picture looking good.

However, even if the pilot does elect to hand-fly, following the FMS visual approach, especially the vertical guidance provided, both serves to reduce pilot workload and the chance of an unexpected high turn onto final, as well as to “train” the pilot’s eye as to what the proper height and distance sight picture is on a visual base leg.

Finally, interpreted properly, synthetic vision provides accurate vertical guidance to a runway even when no approach is loaded. Where the runway symbol sits on the primary flight display’s (PFD) pitch scale is also the angle to the runway on which the aircraft is descending: If the runway threshold sits exactly at the negative-3-degree point on the PFD, the aircraft is on a 3-degree path to the runway. If the runway is at a much lower or higher point on the pitch scale the pilot can instantly see correction is needed; using the flight path marker, the pilot can ensure enough control input is made to fix the descent angle, restabilizing the visual approach.