 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Air carrier flight crew reported a GPWS activation on short final to jan at night in marginal VFR conditions.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1453463 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201705 |
| Local Time Of Day | 1801-2400 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | JAN.Airport |
| State Reference | MS |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Medium Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Final Approach |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Captain Pilot Not Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Person 2 | |
| Function | Pilot Flying First Officer |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT |
Narrative:
Landing in jan; isolated showers around the field; thunderstorms south/southeast. We reported the field in sight. Approach advised showers 3-4 mile final and asked if we would be able to maintain sight of the runway. We replied that we would keep the turn to final inside 4 miles; and if we lost sight of the field we would advise ATC. We were cleared for the visual approach; backed up by the RNAV/GPS. At approximately 300-500 feet we got the 'too low; terrain' GPWS caution message. The first officer executed a missed approach; we advised tower; climbed to 3000 ft; and were then re-vectored for another approach. This time we opted for the actual RNAV/GPS; rather than the visual. Approach and landing were uneventful. Although the glide angle; to both of us; appeared to be unusually steep.tower later said they couldn't figure out why we would be going missed; since they had us in sight the entire time and landing was assured. We informed them it was policy to go-around after a GPWS terrain message. Only threats were the rainy weather; dark night; and a long day. No errors.all I can figure; is that with the close-in turn to final on the visual approach; it may be possible the GPS didn't have time to recognize we were right over the runway. In hindsight; the best option would have been to ask for the full RNAV approach; rather than accepting the visual in rainy night-time conditions.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Air carrier flight crew reported a GPWS activation on short final to JAN at night in marginal VFR conditions.
Narrative: Landing in JAN; isolated showers around the field; thunderstorms South/SE. We reported the field in sight. Approach advised showers 3-4 mile final and asked if we would be able to maintain sight of the runway. We replied that we would keep the turn to final inside 4 miles; and if we lost sight of the field we would advise ATC. We were cleared for the visual approach; backed up by the RNAV/GPS. At approximately 300-500 feet we got the 'Too Low; Terrain' GPWS caution message. The FO executed a missed approach; we advised Tower; climbed to 3000 ft; and were then re-vectored for another approach. This time we opted for the actual RNAV/GPS; rather than the visual. Approach and landing were uneventful. Although the glide angle; to both of us; appeared to be unusually steep.Tower later said they couldn't figure out why we would be going missed; since they had us in sight the entire time and landing was assured. We informed them it was policy to go-around after a GPWS Terrain message. Only threats were the rainy weather; dark night; and a long day. No errors.All I can figure; is that with the close-in turn to final on the visual approach; it may be possible the GPS didn't have time to recognize we were right over the runway. In hindsight; the best option would have been to ask for the full RNAV approach; rather than accepting the visual in rainy night-time conditions.
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.