Narrative:

Cleared for a night visual approach with the autopilot engaged. Approximately 4 NM east of sipme FAF for runway 3 received a 'terrain; terrain; pull up' warning from egpws. Initiated the escape maneuver. No more terrain warnings were received. Leveled and maneuvered to reestablish ourselves for a visual approach. No further issues with the remainder of the approach and landing.first officer remarked as we discussed later that at the moment of the egpws warning he observed a radar altimeter reading of 2;450 feet. I recall our indicated altitude as being in the region of 2600 MSL at the time of the alert. 2600 feet was set in the altitude alerter by us as it corresponded to the minimum altitude on the approach to sipme. Rate of descent was less than 1000 FPM; I believe.cause:1. Incomplete terrain information in [our airport information] pages.2. ATC efforts to have the crew accept an early visual approach; at night; in the vicinity of rising terrain.3. Unfamiliarity with airport. 4. Night-time approach in VMC.leaving cho this morning I observed a ridge line in the area of the event. The only topographical feature that corresponds to the ridge on the chart is the 1049 ft 'obstacle' east of sipme. Rate of descent and height above terrain in the area has us wondering if we didn't have an erroneous alert. In future I will treat an approach into cho as if it were a special qualification airport and request vectors to the final approach course; only accepting the visual approach once established. Our [airport information] talks about the ridge line to the west of the airport. I would like to see it speak about the one to the east also as I see it is a 'hidden' threat. The approach controller was keen for us to accept a visual approach earlier than we did. I mentioned this to the first officer and we agreed that though we both saw the beacon and the airport environment that we would delay accepting a visual approach. It has been a couple of years since I last flew to cho and have never approached it from the east or at night.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier Captain received an EGPWS warning; initiated an escape maneuver; and returned to land while on a night visual approach to CHO Runway 3.

Narrative: Cleared for a night visual approach with the autopilot engaged. Approximately 4 NM east of SIPME FAF for runway 3 received a 'terrain; terrain; pull up' warning from EGPWS. Initiated the escape maneuver. No more terrain warnings were received. Leveled and maneuvered to reestablish ourselves for a visual approach. No further issues with the remainder of the approach and landing.FO remarked as we discussed later that at the moment of the EGPWS warning he observed a radar altimeter reading of 2;450 feet. I recall our indicated altitude as being in the region of 2600 MSL at the time of the alert. 2600 feet was set in the altitude alerter by us as it corresponded to the minimum altitude on the approach to SIPME. Rate of descent was less than 1000 FPM; I believe.Cause:1. Incomplete terrain information in [our airport information] pages.2. ATC efforts to have the crew accept an early visual approach; at night; in the vicinity of rising terrain.3. Unfamiliarity with airport. 4. Night-time approach in VMC.Leaving CHO this morning I observed a ridge line in the area of the event. The only topographical feature that corresponds to the ridge on the chart is the 1049 Ft 'obstacle' east of SIPME. Rate of descent and height above terrain in the area has us wondering if we didn't have an erroneous alert. In future I will treat an approach into CHO as if it were a special qualification airport and request vectors to the final approach course; only accepting the visual approach once established. Our [airport information] talks about the ridge line to the West of the airport. I would like to see it speak about the one to the East also as I see it is a 'hidden' threat. The approach controller was keen for us to accept a visual approach earlier than we did. I mentioned this to the FO and we agreed that though we both saw the beacon and the airport environment that we would delay accepting a visual approach. It has been a couple of years since I last flew to CHO and have never approached it from the East or at night.

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.