Narrative:

The bur ATIS called for runway 33 with winds at 310 at 5 knots. The pilot flying (PF) briefed that she would prefer to land runway 8 since 33 had no approaches and she had never landed on 33. The data allowed for runway 08 with only one or two knots of tailwind. We agreed to request that; but did discuss some of the hazards associated with 33 along with a discussion of optimal flight path for the 33 visual. When we checked in with socal; winds were now too strong for a landing on runway 8 and we accepted vectors for the base to 33. I entered the runway into the FMC with a three-mile final and 3.2 degree flight path angle to match the papis. We delayed calling the airport in sight until the PF could see runway 33. By this time our vector already had us south of the ventura freeway; which I briefed earlier as a good guide to fly over on the way to the base turn. The PF was too slow in making the left turn for a tight enough base leg and we received a 'caution; terrain' GPWS alert. We initiated a go-around in accordance with procedure; and the PF flew a smooth; non-eventful go-around and subsequent approach to landing on 33.1. I did a poor job of not recognizing the PF's inherent task saturation and communicating with the requisite assertiveness. I hinted that an LNAV/VNAV solution to base was available and that we needed to stay north of the freeway; but should have used more authoritative language on the necessary course correction.2. An RNAV visual approach would be great idea for bur runway 33.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 flight crew experienced a GPWS terrain warning during a night visual approach to Runway 33 at BUR and went around. The second visual approach was successful.

Narrative: The BUR ATIS called for Runway 33 with winds at 310 at 5 knots. The Pilot Flying (PF) briefed that she would prefer to land Runway 8 since 33 had no approaches and she had never landed on 33. The data allowed for Runway 08 with only one or two knots of tailwind. We agreed to request that; but did discuss some of the hazards associated with 33 along with a discussion of optimal flight path for the 33 Visual. When we checked in with SoCal; winds were now too strong for a landing on Runway 8 and we accepted vectors for the base to 33. I entered the runway into the FMC with a three-mile final and 3.2 degree flight path angle to match the PAPIs. We delayed calling the airport in sight until the PF could see Runway 33. By this time our vector already had us south of the Ventura Freeway; which I briefed earlier as a good guide to fly over on the way to the base turn. The PF was too slow in making the left turn for a tight enough base leg and we received a 'Caution; Terrain' GPWS Alert. We initiated a go-around IAW procedure; and the PF flew a smooth; non-eventful go-around and subsequent approach to landing on 33.1. I did a poor job of not recognizing the PF's inherent task saturation and communicating with the requisite assertiveness. I hinted that an LNAV/VNAV solution to base was available and that we needed to stay north of the freeway; but should have used more authoritative language on the necessary course correction.2. An RNAV Visual approach would be great idea for BUR Runway 33.

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.