Narrative:

Flying ZZZ-gsp on a clear night. I commute out of gsp and would consider myself very familiar with the airport. Though I haven't personally flown in to gsp many times (usually on the jumpseat); I have flown this leg three times in the past three months.briefbriefed terrain that we would be flying over inbound to the approach. Specifically joked that we would not descend to and cross through the terrain at the FAF altitude of 2;600 feet (approach plate MSA 5;200). Briefed the ILS as a backup approach. We would request direct to the FAF to intercept the ILS. Briefed that we would use a 3:1 glidepath to the FAF; especially tonight due to the terrain. I noted the highest obstacle of 1;495' north of the FAF; which we would be flying over; but did not brief it. It was not a huge concern as I would be a minimum of 1;000 feet over it with the FAF altitude of 2;600; but probably even higher as I would be on a 3:1 (either calculated or using the ILS G/south). Both PF (pilot flying) and pm (pilot monitoring) had terrain selected to display on the nav display. I had lymen (FAF) in the prog page to show distance to the FAF and help monitor my 3:1 and energy level as I descended.as PF; my plan was to maintain my last assigned altitude until intercepting the 3:1; either calculated or just capturing the ILS G/south (glide slope). Coming in 400 feet higher than the FAF altitude; at a 35-40 degree intercept; and direct to the FAF; I knew the G/south would capture first; then the localizer. Being that we were on a visual approach; I was fine with that. The company's visual approach guide was not specifically briefed (not required to be); but everything in it was either briefed or considered mentally; and was followed.approachwe were cleared direct to the FAF by atl center probably 100 nm away from gsp; which was my briefed plan for intercepting the visual final. At around 5;000 feet (can't remember if we were level or not); greer approach cleared us to descend to 3;000; cleared for the visual. Selected an open descent to 3;000 and armed the [approach mode]. G/south captured sooner than I expected; and it was a bit erratic and the F/D (flight director) wasn't doing a great job of following it; which drew in my attention. I didn't like it; so I started thinking about hand flying it myself. I think I clicked off the a/P (auto-pilot) to hand fly it at this point; but might not have until I started my climb (just a few seconds later).recognizing that the terrain display was a lot more solid green than usual and the ground outside seemed to be closer than usual; I checked my altitude and saw I was already around 1;600-1;800 on the radar altimeter; which was odd because I usually lower the landing gear at 2;000 feet. I called for gear down and began slowing to approach speed. I wasn't yet to the FAF... Which I knew had a 2600 ft intercept altitude... I immediately knew what had happened and started an immediate climb. The lowest altitude I saw was 1700-1800 MSL; which would put us around 700-800 AGL. Going back; I think we were around 200 feet vertically and just over 1 mile to the left of the 1;495 MSL cell tower north of lymen. We didn't get any terrain cautions or warnings or ATC low altitude alerts and a go-around didn't make sense as we were still outside of the FAF.we still had 3;000 feet set as the selected altitude; and I selected 180 kts to get back to the 180 kts/2;600 feet crossing the FAF that I wanted to be at. I wasn't following the F/D now and should have deselected them until we got back to 2;600; but I didn't think about it. We then crossed lymen (FAF) at around 2;600 feet; went back to managed/approach speed; configured normally; and landed. I'm 99% sure we met all stabilized approach criteria inside the FAF as we already had gear down; but I didn't specifically verify that.cause:biggest cause was me assuming that the ILS G/south could serve as my 3:1 G/P to the FAF without verifying it mentally. I assumed that the G/south displayed on the pfd was showing me the 3:1; saving me the extra effort of having to do the math. Secondly I did not identify that the G/south was good before I armed the [approach mode]; either via the ilmj identification or by a 3:1 altitude crosscheck. Complacency for me as I was feeling pretty good about an easy night visual into my home airport. I am usually very careful about arming the [approach mode] to early; but I just went ahead and armed it tonight because I was familiar with the airport. Apparently pilot familiarity does not affect G/south performance outside of its service volume.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: First Officer of a large passenger aircraft reported getting low on the approach profile while conducting a visual approach at night.

Narrative: Flying ZZZ-GSP on a clear night. I commute out of GSP and would consider myself very familiar with the airport. Though I haven't personally flown in to GSP many times (usually on the jumpseat); I have flown this leg three times in the past three months.BriefBriefed terrain that we would be flying over inbound to the approach. Specifically joked that we would not descend to and cross through the terrain at the FAF altitude of 2;600 feet (approach plate MSA 5;200). Briefed the ILS as a backup approach. We would request direct to the FAF to intercept the ILS. Briefed that we would use a 3:1 glidepath to the FAF; especially tonight due to the terrain. I noted the highest obstacle of 1;495' north of the FAF; which we would be flying over; but did not brief it. It was not a huge concern as I would be a minimum of 1;000 feet over it with the FAF altitude of 2;600; but probably even higher as I would be on a 3:1 (either calculated or using the ILS G/S). Both PF (pilot flying) and PM (pilot monitoring) had Terrain selected to display on the Nav display. I had LYMEN (FAF) in the PROG page to show distance to the FAF and help monitor my 3:1 and energy level as I descended.As PF; my plan was to maintain my last assigned altitude until intercepting the 3:1; either calculated or just capturing the ILS G/S (glide slope). Coming in 400 feet higher than the FAF altitude; at a 35-40 degree intercept; and direct to the FAF; I knew the G/S would capture first; then the LOC. Being that we were on a visual approach; I was fine with that. The company's Visual Approach Guide was not specifically briefed (not required to be); but everything in it was either briefed or considered mentally; and was followed.ApproachWe were cleared direct to the FAF by ATL center probably 100 nm away from GSP; which was my briefed plan for intercepting the visual final. At around 5;000 feet (can't remember if we were level or not); Greer Approach cleared us to descend to 3;000; cleared for the visual. Selected an Open Descent to 3;000 and armed the [approach mode]. G/S captured sooner than I expected; and it was a bit erratic and the F/D (Flight Director) wasn't doing a great job of following it; which drew in my attention. I didn't like it; so I started thinking about hand flying it myself. I think I clicked off the A/P (Auto-pilot) to hand fly it at this point; but might not have until I started my climb (just a few seconds later).Recognizing that the terrain display was a lot more solid green than usual and the ground outside seemed to be closer than usual; I checked my altitude and saw I was already around 1;600-1;800 on the radar altimeter; which was odd because I usually lower the landing gear at 2;000 feet. I called for gear down and began slowing to approach speed. I wasn't yet to the FAF... which I knew had a 2600 ft intercept altitude... I immediately knew what had happened and started an immediate climb. The lowest altitude I saw was 1700-1800 MSL; which would put us around 700-800 AGL. Going back; I think we were around 200 feet vertically and just over 1 mile to the left of the 1;495 MSL cell tower north of LYMEN. We didn't get any terrain cautions or warnings or ATC low altitude alerts and a go-around didn't make sense as we were still outside of the FAF.We still had 3;000 feet set as the selected altitude; and I selected 180 kts to get back to the 180 kts/2;600 feet crossing the FAF that I wanted to be at. I wasn't following the F/D now and should have deselected them until we got back to 2;600; but I didn't think about it. We then crossed LYMEN (FAF) at around 2;600 feet; went back to managed/approach speed; configured normally; and landed. I'm 99% sure we met all stabilized approach criteria inside the FAF as we already had gear down; but I didn't specifically verify that.Cause:Biggest cause was me assuming that the ILS G/S could serve as my 3:1 G/P to the FAF without verifying it mentally. I assumed that the G/S displayed on the PFD was showing me the 3:1; saving me the extra effort of having to do the math. Secondly I did not identify that the G/S was good before I armed the [approach mode]; either via the ILMJ identification or by a 3:1 altitude crosscheck. Complacency for me as I was feeling pretty good about an easy night visual into my home airport. I am usually very careful about arming the [approach mode] to early; but I just went ahead and armed it tonight because I was familiar with the airport. Apparently pilot familiarity does not affect G/S performance outside of its service volume.

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.