Fractional Captain reported instrument and visual guidance was not available to Runway 16R at night due to frequent airport construction; which led to the flight crew to use the guided visual to Runway 34L. The reporter also stated that vectors from ATC led to an unstable; excessively steep approach path and combined with the fuel minimums; there were many safety concerns.

Narrative

This report pertains to a night arrival into Van Nuys Airport (VNY); operating under a south flow (Runway 16R in use); while requesting and ultimately landing on Runway 34L via the enhanced guided visual approach.Due to the ongoing and frequent construction at Van Nuys; the north portion of Runway 16R was NOTAM'd closed - disabling both the VASI and ILS. Van Nuys continues to operate without an RNAV approach to 16R; which is highly unusual for an airport of its size and traffic volume.Given a light tailwind; Runway 34L was operationally suitable; particularly because the guided visual to 34L offers stable vertical guidance. I advised Center of our need to request 34L due to safety and operational necessity. SoCal acknowledged; and coordination proceeded.Primary safety concerns: ATC vectoring and terrain risk. SoCal Approach attempted to vector us south of the field prior to issuing visual clearance. This resulted in positioning that led to an unstable; excessively steep (approximately 5°) approach path with terrain between us and the airport - inviting a Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) scenario. I explicitly requested clearance to self-position via left base or downwind for terrain avoidance. Though it frustrated the Controller; safety dictated the decision.Inexperienced PIC: The assigned PIC has not yet accrued the hours required to take the line check. While technically legal; this reflects a broader concern about the accelerated promotion pipeline and its limitations under challenging; non-standard operations. On clear weather days; many pilots appear fully capable - but in high-density; complex airspace with terrain and procedural nuances; experience becomes non-negotiable.Fuel strategy / flight plan minima: The flight-plan-recommended fuel would have left us with reserves only upon landing. Given the additional maneuvering and ATC vectoring encountered; this would have left zero options for delay; go-around; or divert. I had planned additional discretionary fuel; which provided a safe buffer. The fuel program targets efficiency but often underestimates operational reality - particularly in SoCal.Inadequate visual approach infrastructure: There is no RNAV to 16R; and the ongoing NOTAMs further degrade vertical guidance options. This; combined with heavy Burbank traffic and ATC prioritization of overflights (e.g.; southwest arrivals to BUR Runway 8); puts corporate traffic into compromised paths during off-nominal operations.Recommendations. Training and experience review: Reevaluate minimums for PIC release; especially for those who haven't gained substantial experience in high-density airspace. Consider delaying upgrade eligibility beyond the legal minimum to ensure readiness.Standardized visual approach policy at VNY: Develop SOP language or FOM guidance for south flow VNY arrivals requesting Runway 34L; including preferred positioning (left base vs. south over terrain) and policy for declining unsafe vectors.Review fuel minimum policy: Reassess fuel program default landing fuel minimums at complex airports like VNY. Encourage (or require) tanker fuel buffers for night operations; construction NOTAMs; or when using complex visuals.Advocate for RNAV at VNY Runway 16R: Work with FAA to prioritize publication of an RNAV approach to Runway 16R; given the volume and complexity of operations at VNY.Closing statement: While the approach and landing were ultimately completed safely; the convergence of low PIC experience; aggressive vectoring from ATC; a lack of stabilized approach infrastructure; and fuel margins all COULD HAVE contributed to heightened operational risk. They WILL contribute to lower safety margins when a highly experienced pilot is absent from the cockpit given the same scenario in the future. This flight highlights the need for stronger safeguards and policies; particularly as we continue to operate with a junior pilot workforce under high utilization pressure.Suggestions: Reviewreleasing PIC low time pilots at X;XXX hours in any Company aircraft; much less a super midsize airplane. Consider increasing the hour requirement another 1;000 hours until that PIC can operate without a more experience pilot in the cockpit with them whether it's a PIC or SIC. They don't yet have the exposure. They need to know how to operate the AOM; the aircraft; and to know how to Company." Then we are putting them into some of the most complex and challenging flight operations.Work to establish a straight-in RNAV or guided visual procedure for 16 Right. Get some construction completion ETAs from the Airport Authority in Van Nuys and communicate them to crews. Educate SoCal Approach on our needs as Company flight cruise in regards to supporting us as we try to use the tools we have available to satisfy the requirements that are placed upon us to operate in-n-out Van Nuys at night using our guided visual procedures.Add more fuel to the release to give our cruise more options when they arrive into an airport traffic area in adverse weather or not. Currently the fuel program in my opinion leaves our average Company crews with very few options other than diverting or pushing into an unsafe situation with critical fuel."