Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G650
Operator: Corporate
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other Demonstration
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While being vectored by Approach Control on approach to Runway XXC at ZZZ; we were held at 4;000 ft. on the base leg with instructions to maintain 210 KIAS. We were subsequently given clearance for a Visual Approach to Runway XXC. The pilot flying from the left seat was the PIC (Pilot in Command). I was the SIC (Second in Command)/pilot monitoring from the right seat and acknowledged the visual approach clearance. The pilot flying made appropriate use of power levers; speed breaks; flaps; and landing gear to set up for a stabilized approach as he attempted to descend and intercept a normal glide path on final approach to the runway; while maintaining the requested 210 knot speed restriction. Once established on final; but still above a normal glide path; the PIC asked me to query ATC as to whether we could resume normal approach speed. The controller replied; 'When I clear you for a visual approach; the speed restriction is removed.' Noting that we were still above the PAPI and glidepath on final approach as a result of being kept at high altitude on the base leg and while descending through approximately 2;000 ft.; both crewmembers agreed that the aircraft could likely be configured to salvage a stabilized approach. However; as we descended through approximately 1;000 ft.; we realized that we had not been handed off to the control tower. As the approach control frequency was busy; I attempted to switch to the control tower frequency automatically; and was trying to reference the approach chart on the pilot's side display for the appropriate frequency; as there were three listed for the various runways. As a break in communications presented itself; I quickly queried approach control; 'Aircraft X to tower?' The controller responded that we should already be on the tower frequency; which he had not yet instructed us to do; and which was not the published frequency for Runway XXC. As the aircraft was now on short final; slightly above glide path; notwithstanding the long length of the runway; and the fact that we had not received landing clearance from the tower; the crew immediately agreed to go around; and smoothly initiated a go around procedure. I checked in with ZZZ Tower to advise we were going around. We were vectored by tower in a left hand traffic pattern at an appropriate altitude; without speed restriction; and were able to properly configure; execute a visual approach and land without incident.The crew could have solicited a lower altitude from Approach on the base leg and/or stated that we were unable to maintain the 210 KIAS speed restriction in order to establish ourselves on the final approach course at an appropriate altitude and speed for a stabilized approach. We could also have solicited a handoff from approach to tower frequency sooner. The decision to go around was prudently made and smoothly executed. However; we should have made the decision to do so at 1;000 feet AGL due to our position above the normal glide path (unstable approach) and not having been handed off to tower.


Second narrative: While being vectored for a visual approach to XXC at ZZZ; approach had us turning a close in base at 4;000 ft. and 210 knots as assigned. Once we were on the final approach course; we were cleared for the visual approach. I knew that we were both too high and too fast; however I thought with the use of drag devices we could become stable prior to 1000 ft. per our FOM. I noticed that we were on a 2-3 mile final and had not been switched to the tower controller yet and asked the PNF (Pilot Not Flying) to query the approach controller. The approach controller stated that he had handed us over to the tower controller; neither of us in the cockpit heard that or acknowledged that instruction. The PNF was searching on the approach chart for a tower frequency and there was some confusion as he was trying the read the chart and which frequency he should be on. By the time I could have the PNF query the controller again; I realized that we were not going to be stable within the parameters of the FOM. I made the decision to go-around and informed the PNF to tell the approach controller we were executing a missed approach. The approach controller gave us instructions to fly runway heading to 3000 ft. and vectored us around for another visual approach which ended up in a stable; uneventful landing.I should have realized earlier on in the approach that we were vectored onto the final approach course too fast and too high. The PNF should have preloaded the tower frequency into the Radio Tune page. The decision to execute a go-around was correct but could have possibly been made sooner.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported a go around due to unstable approach and late handoff from approach controller.