Leaving aside (although one shouldn't) the concept of this ridiculous scenario, I believe there MAY be some misconception here.
The OP talks about a "visual" approach after a GA in this scenario.
This is not a circling approach therefore neither TERPs nor PANS OPS threshold distances come into it. Neither should there be a requirement to fly a "visual circuit" per se. When you are cleared for a visual approach, unless it is specified via LH/RH downwind or L/R base etc. it is entirely up to the pilot to manoeuvre the aeroplane with terrain separation his responsibility and no specific timings 45secs or otherwise are applicable (only those prerequisites already mentioned such as keeping the ground and RW where applicable in sight and therefore, terrain permitting, it should be possible to extend the final approach leg. A quick look at the charts suggests there is adequate space for this.
Someone already mentioned it was their SOPs to fly at 1,500'agl and time 45 secs etc. IF the company really mean that for every visual approach then all bets are off regarding my comments above, or are they in fact quoting the standard training circuit numbers which are after all only there for guidance, a training circuit is really a useful tool for handling and training but not a requirement for a visual approach.
All of the mentioned ingredients in the quoted scenario, when combined are simply some misguided fool's version of good training.
I may be wide of the mark here but I find it is regularly misunderstood that a visual approach must be flown as a visual circuit, especially in the simulator.
Study the charts carefully, glean all the info you can especially distance from abeam RW and threshold to terrain and formulate a plan for a visual approach. Be creative but sensible and don't be hamstrung by irrelevant data. Finally make sure you can defend/justify your plan or actions if challenged.
Last edited by Starbear; 25th Jan 2018 at 02:32.