Narrative:

On approach to landing to runway 22 at gsp [after tower closure] we encountered an ATC induced situation that led to a higher than normal descent rate during the last 5;000 feet of descent and a rushed situation in the cockpit that lead to deviations from company SOP.approximately 100 miles from the gsp airport we were cleared to proceed direct to the airport. We were issued pilots discretion descent and all portions of the flight remained normal up to this point. We were aware of the fact that gsp is a top 10 flight operations quality assurance (foqa) unstable approach airport; and as pilot flying I included discussion about this in my approach briefing. We discussed asking for vectors to intercept the ILS localizer and glideslope so that we could keep operations standard and avoid an unstable approach. As we were getting closer to the airport; we were switched to atlanta center. We were issued a descent to 6;000 feet and told to advise the airport in sight. Due to the dark nighttime conditions and our relative unfamiliarity with the airport we were unable to see the airport at such a distance; approximately 20-30 miles out. The pilot monitoring (pm) then asked for a lower altitude and the controller seemed very annoyed and told us that she could not give us lower due to minimum vectoring altitudes. In response; the pm then asked for vectors for the ILS 22 to which the controller responded again in a very unhelpful manner. We were then told to proceed directly to lymen; the FAF on the ILS 22. We began to configure the aircraft for landing and were expecting a lower assigned altitude. As we approached the FAF we were still at 6;000 feet when the GS intercept altitude at lymen is 2700. We realized that if we did not take action we were going to be way too high; so since the airport was now in sight we called it and were cleared for the visual approach.at this point; I fully configured the airplane and added spoilers to increase the descent rate in an attempt to achieve a stabilized approach by 1000 feet AGL. After adding all of this drag; our airspeed reduced to approximately 125 knots when vref for the approach was 131 knots. After promptly recognizing this deviation; I removed the autopilot; added power and reduced spoilers. We continued this aggressive descent until the PAPI indicated that we were on glideslope and then continued the visual approach as normal. We landed without incident; and were stabilized by 1000 AGL; but due to the high workload; upon landing we realized that we had failed to run a before landing checklist or make any announcements on the CTAF.gsp tower and approach control cease operation at 2345 local time which leaves atl center as the only facility to provide services after that time. In order to avoid a situation like this in the future; I recommend requiring all arrivals after approach and tower closure to be required to be on the ILS approach. Without being on a published approach; the high minimum vectoring altitude pressures pilots to call the airport in sight in order to achieve a normal; stabilized approach. If you do not get the airport in sight early; it is nearly impossible to make a normal approach.additionally; we could have requested vectors to the localizer or for the ILS 22 approach sooner when we checked in with atl center. Also; the center controller could have been much more accommodating and helpful with our requests.my final recommendation is to put information regarding the high minimum vectoring altitudes and ways to avoid an un-stabilized approach on the crew briefing page.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Regional jet First Officer described the difficulties of a night visual approach into GSP and offered some recommendations.

Narrative: On approach to landing to runway 22 at GSP [after Tower closure] we encountered an ATC induced situation that led to a higher than normal descent rate during the last 5;000 feet of descent and a rushed situation in the cockpit that lead to deviations from company SOP.Approximately 100 miles from the GSP airport we were cleared to proceed direct to the airport. We were issued pilots discretion descent and all portions of the flight remained normal up to this point. We were aware of the fact that GSP is a top 10 Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) unstable approach airport; and as Pilot Flying I included discussion about this in my approach briefing. We discussed asking for vectors to intercept the ILS localizer and glideslope so that we could keep operations standard and avoid an unstable approach. As we were getting closer to the airport; we were switched to Atlanta center. We were issued a descent to 6;000 feet and told to advise the airport in sight. Due to the dark nighttime conditions and our relative unfamiliarity with the airport we were unable to see the airport at such a distance; approximately 20-30 miles out. The Pilot Monitoring (PM) then asked for a lower altitude and the controller seemed very annoyed and told us that she could not give us lower due to minimum vectoring altitudes. In response; the PM then asked for vectors for the ILS 22 to which the controller responded again in a very unhelpful manner. We were then told to proceed directly to LYMEN; the FAF on the ILS 22. We began to configure the aircraft for landing and were expecting a lower assigned altitude. As we approached the FAF we were still at 6;000 feet when the GS intercept altitude at LYMEN is 2700. We realized that if we did not take action we were going to be way too high; so since the airport was now in sight we called it and were cleared for the visual approach.At this point; I fully configured the airplane and added spoilers to increase the descent rate in an attempt to achieve a stabilized approach by 1000 feet AGL. After adding all of this drag; our airspeed reduced to approximately 125 knots when Vref for the approach was 131 knots. After promptly recognizing this deviation; I removed the autopilot; added power and reduced spoilers. We continued this aggressive descent until the PAPI indicated that we were on glideslope and then continued the visual approach as normal. We landed without incident; and were stabilized by 1000 AGL; but due to the high workload; upon landing we realized that we had failed to run a before landing checklist or make any announcements on the CTAF.GSP tower and approach control cease operation at 2345 local time which leaves ATL center as the only facility to provide services after that time. In order to avoid a situation like this in the future; I recommend requiring all arrivals after approach and tower closure to be required to be on the ILS approach. Without being on a published approach; the high minimum vectoring altitude pressures pilots to call the airport in sight in order to achieve a normal; stabilized approach. If you do not get the airport in sight early; it is nearly impossible to make a normal approach.Additionally; we could have requested vectors to the localizer or for the ILS 22 approach sooner when we checked in with ATL center. Also; the center controller could have been much more accommodating and helpful with our requests.My final recommendation is to put information regarding the high minimum vectoring altitudes and ways to avoid an un-stabilized approach on the crew briefing page.

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.