Narrative:

We were approaching cho runway 3 from the north in right traffic. We had briefed that there was a mountain ridge 4000' (according to the 10-7 page) to the west of the airport and that right traffic would be more appropriate. The MSA to the northwest was 4900' and to the southeast was 2000' of gordonsville VOR. We were cleared for the visual approach and to broadcast on advisory since tower was closed. We were downwind descending midfield to 2600' thinking we were appropriately clear of the terrain and the 1796' tower located on the downwind. As we were about to turn base; we were noticing the sector height turning yellow at 025. Then we received a 'terrain' aural caution egpws and took appropriate evasive action climbing to 3000 feet.the main threat is the tower on downwind and the canted MSA line for terrain based on gve VOR which is further south and east of the field. We were attempting to stay safe and get configured early outside the sipme final approach fix as appropriate to have a stabilized approach. We chose right downwind to safely avoid the 4000' mountain ridge 10 miles west of the field mentioned in the 10-7 page. Secondarily; it was late in the day and we were approaching 12 hours of duty. I think the error is that we missed that MSA location maybe assuming it to be further north and centered on the field. The uas is definitely that the egpws caution parameters were set off based on our altitude near terrain and/or manmade obstacle in the downwind. A great deal was learned from this event. Fortunately it wasn't a more extreme egpws warning; but a uas nonetheless. We need to be better at situational awareness in terrain at night by planning better and having a better idea of the location of the navaid that the MSA is based on. Here it was further south than we thought. At night; as we do in a place like avl; we should be on a segment of the ILS possibly at this location before accepting the visual. We got into the visual approach mindset and thought we were safely approaching. We need to pay more attention on these clear nights when these threats are present so as to avoid this uas.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier crew reported they received a TERRAIN warning on a night visual approach to runway 3 CHO. Crew reported climbing and made a successful landing.

Narrative: We were approaching CHO runway 3 from the north in right traffic. We had briefed that there was a mountain ridge 4000' (according to the 10-7 page) to the west of the airport and that right traffic would be more appropriate. The MSA to the Northwest was 4900' and to the Southeast was 2000' of Gordonsville VOR. We were cleared for the visual approach and to broadcast on advisory since tower was closed. We were downwind descending midfield to 2600' thinking we were appropriately clear of the terrain and the 1796' tower located on the downwind. As we were about to turn base; we were noticing the sector height turning yellow at 025. Then we received a 'TERRAIN' AURAL CAUTION EGPWS and took appropriate evasive action climbing to 3000 feet.The main threat is the tower on downwind and the canted MSA line for terrain based on GVE VOR which is further south and east of the field. We were attempting to stay safe and get configured early outside the SIPME final approach fix as appropriate to have a stabilized approach. We chose right downwind to safely avoid the 4000' mountain ridge 10 miles west of the field mentioned in the 10-7 page. Secondarily; it was late in the day and we were approaching 12 hours of duty. I think the error is that we missed that MSA location maybe assuming it to be further north and centered on the field. The UAS is definitely that the EGPWS caution parameters were set off based on our altitude near terrain and/or manmade obstacle in the downwind. A great deal was learned from this event. Fortunately it wasn't a more extreme EGPWS WARNING; but a UAS nonetheless. We need to be better at Situational Awareness in terrain at night by planning better and having a better idea of the location of the navaid that the MSA is based on. Here it was further south than we thought. At night; as we do in a place like AVL; we should be on a segment of the ILS possibly at this location before accepting the visual. We got into the visual approach mindset and thought we were safely approaching. We need to pay more attention on these clear nights when these threats are present so as to avoid this UAS.

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.