Narrative:

Approach to medford airport oregon was the localizer back course DME-B which leads to rw 32 although the ceilings were 6500 foot with 10 miles visibility. Broke out just before FAF which was 7200 foot MSL 9 miles from runway. I had to do some s-turns and a steeper decent then normal which caused a couple tawws warnings; one was sink rate and the other was unstable. I had cockpit speaker mute on so the passengers heard none of this. These both came well before the stabilized approach altitude criteria; 1000 foot IFR and 500 VFR. I was stable by that time. We landed uneventfully and passengers were fine; they didn't appear to notice any additional maneuvering. Afterward I was wondering why I had to do this maneuvering as we were on published altitude at all fixes including the FAF. I looked more closely at the approach plate and saw the gp angle was 5.98. That explained it. This approach leads to runway 32; not 14. In the future I will look more closely at the gp angles. I usually do when I am a little more keyed up anticipating a fully IFR approach but I may have been a little more lax with the high ceilings and visibility. I also think that a note could be put in the feasibility notes for mfr to take note and be prepared for the high gp angle on this approach. The reason to look more closely at gp angles is just to be more mentally ready for them.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A medium transport jet crew on approach to MFR needed S turns and activated TAWS during the LOC BC DME-B Runway 32. They were surprised by the 5.98 glide path angle discovered after landing.

Narrative: Approach to Medford airport Oregon was the LOC BC DME-B which leads to RW 32 although the ceilings were 6500 foot with 10 miles visibility. Broke out just before FAF which was 7200 foot MSL 9 miles from runway. I had to do some s-turns and a steeper decent then normal which caused a couple TAWWS warnings; one was sink rate and the other was unstable. I had cockpit speaker mute on so the passengers heard none of this. These both came well before the stabilized approach altitude criteria; 1000 foot IFR and 500 VFR. I was stable by that time. We landed uneventfully and passengers were fine; they didn't appear to notice any additional maneuvering. Afterward I was wondering why I had to do this maneuvering as we were on published altitude at all fixes including the FAF. I looked more closely at the approach plate and saw the GP angle was 5.98. That explained it. This approach leads to runway 32; not 14. In the future I will look more closely at the GP angles. I usually do when I am a little more keyed up anticipating a fully IFR approach but I may have been a little more lax with the high ceilings and visibility. I also think that a note could be put in the feasibility notes for MFR to take note and be prepared for the high GP angle on this approach. The reason to look more closely at GP angles is just to be more mentally ready for them.

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.