Narrative:

I am categorizing this as an unstable approach since I consider the stadium visual runway 29 poorly designed and suited for night procedures by large commercial jets. When two seasoned pilots are both staring out the flight deck at night trying to find visual cues for a runway at low altitudes while in a continuous turn to final on a charted visual procedure in VMC weather; something can be improved on. The details are that ewr was landing runway 29 due to strong/gusty winds. ATIS advertised the stadium visual runway 29 with gls approaches available on request. I reviewed stadium visual runway 29 and was surprised there was not a night restriction note on it since I expected that it would be very difficult to discern the checkpoints (i.e.; meadowlands sports complex; cemetery; lincoln park; railway bridge; and even the river). On initial check-in requested RNAV (rnp) Y runway 29 which also started near teterboro VOR but was advised unable by ATC. There is no ILS and really no other approach to back this stadium visual up with. I realize that east coast is a high density area; but requiring a non-local crew to fly a night visual that requires a high degree of local area knowledge to discern the checkpoints that were incredibly difficult to pick out is in my opinion a perfect recipe for an unstable approach and an approach turn stall. Flying this approach at night was very challenging in a fully loaded 737 to a 6;500 feet runway with runway lights that weren't even in sight until no sooner than 500 feet due to omnidirectional runway lights and the requirement of this procedure to be maneuvering for runway centerline as lows 500 feet and possibly less. ATC controllers obviously have their stresses; but they should realize that when a non-local crew is requesting an IFR approach even though a specific visual approach is being advertised; there is probably a good reason for it. Additionally; this stadium visual which likely was designed for noise abatement; is poorly designed in general for large commercial aircraft due to the short base/final and that requires significant maneuvering down low and in close to runway. This is likely the reason that it has numerous warning in the notes about using caution when turning on final approach to ensure correctly lined up with runway. Design a more forgiving stadium visual or honor a pilot's request for a more forgiving approach would be my recommendations.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 First Officer described the difficulty complying with the charted procedures for the EWR Stadium Visual when unfamiliar with the landmarks; at night to a short runway.

Narrative: I am categorizing this as an unstable approach since I consider the Stadium Visual runway 29 poorly designed and suited for night procedures by large commercial jets. When two seasoned pilots are both staring out the flight deck at night trying to find visual cues for a runway at low altitudes while in a continuous turn to final on a charted visual procedure in VMC weather; something can be improved on. The details are that EWR was landing runway 29 due to strong/gusty winds. ATIS advertised the Stadium Visual runway 29 with GLS approaches available on request. I reviewed Stadium Visual Runway 29 and was surprised there was not a night restriction note on it since I expected that it would be very difficult to discern the checkpoints (i.e.; Meadowlands Sports Complex; Cemetery; Lincoln Park; Railway Bridge; and even the river). On initial check-in requested RNAV (RNP) Y Runway 29 which also started near Teterboro VOR but was advised unable by ATC. There is no ILS and really no other approach to back this Stadium Visual up with. I realize that east coast is a high density area; but requiring a non-local crew to fly a night visual that requires a high degree of local area knowledge to discern the checkpoints that were incredibly difficult to pick out is in my opinion a perfect recipe for an unstable approach and an approach turn stall. Flying this approach at night was very challenging in a fully loaded 737 to a 6;500 feet runway with runway lights that weren't even in sight until no sooner than 500 feet due to omnidirectional runway lights and the requirement of this procedure to be maneuvering for runway centerline as lows 500 feet and possibly less. ATC Controllers obviously have their stresses; but they should realize that when a non-local crew is requesting an IFR approach even though a specific visual approach is being advertised; there is probably a good reason for it. Additionally; this Stadium Visual which likely was designed for noise abatement; is poorly designed in general for large commercial aircraft due to the short base/final and that requires significant maneuvering down low and in close to runway. This is likely the reason that it has numerous warning in the notes about using caution when turning on final approach to ensure correctly lined up with runway. Design a more forgiving Stadium Visual or honor a pilot's request for a more forgiving approach would be my recommendations.

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.