Narrative:

This was our first time flying into ewr. We reviewed all information on the briefing pages as well as the airport information. Initially we planned an approach to runway 22L. Early on; we learned the stadium visual to runway 29 was in use. Being unfamiliar with the area and its landmarks; we did what we could to prepare for the approach. The visual approach was not in the database. The fixes on the approach were not in the database so we couldn't use the FMC to accurately fly the approach. There is a RNAV Y approach that closely resembled the charted visual approach. We loaded that approach for reference and briefed the similarities and differences between the approaches. We made a plan we felt we could comfortably follow. We were instructed to follow another aircraft on the approach. We watched him visually and on the map with reference to TCAS; and his track on the approach. We were confident the plan we made and were executing was within the requirements of the approach. We were at the listed positions and altitudes. As we turned final; at about six hundred feet AGL; we saw we were low on the PAPI. The first officer (pilot flying) corrected smoothly toward the proper glide path. As that was happening; the egpws gave us an 'obstacle' caution. It sounded only once before we were on proper glide path. We continued the approach and landed uneventfully. If there are going to be charted visual approaches; build them into the FMC database for reference! At least load the listed fixes so we can manually do something about it. We asked for but were flatly denied the RNAV Y approach; which was very similar to the visual in use. Using rnp approaches allows pilots safety from terrain and situational dangers associated with the approach. They also provide consistency for the controllers.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 flight crew reports being asigned the Stadium Visual to Runway 29 at EWR. The charted visual is not part of the FMC database and the crew requests the RNAV Y Runway 29 and is denied. An EGPWS obstical caution is enunciated at 600 FT and the First Officer corrects to the PAPI and lands.

Narrative: This was our first time flying into EWR. We reviewed all information on the briefing pages as well as the airport information. Initially we planned an approach to Runway 22L. Early on; we learned the Stadium Visual to Runway 29 was in use. Being unfamiliar with the area and its landmarks; we did what we could to prepare for the approach. The visual approach was not in the database. The fixes on the approach were not in the database so we couldn't use the FMC to accurately fly the approach. There is a RNAV Y approach that closely resembled the charted visual approach. We loaded that approach for reference and briefed the similarities and differences between the approaches. We made a plan we felt we could comfortably follow. We were instructed to follow another aircraft on the approach. We watched him visually and on the map with reference to TCAS; and his track on the approach. We were confident the plan we made and were executing was within the requirements of the approach. We were at the listed positions and altitudes. As we turned final; at about six hundred feet AGL; we saw we were low on the PAPI. The First Officer (pilot flying) corrected smoothly toward the proper glide path. As that was happening; the EGPWS gave us an 'obstacle' caution. It sounded only once before we were on proper glide path. We continued the approach and landed uneventfully. If there are going to be charted visual approaches; build them into the FMC database for reference! At least load the listed fixes so we can manually do something about it. We asked for but were flatly denied the RNAV Y approach; which was very similar to the visual in use. Using RNP approaches allows pilots safety from terrain and situational dangers associated with the approach. They also provide consistency for the controllers.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.