Narrative:

Arriving into las on the tyssn 5 arrival at night. ATIS advertised visual approaches to runways 19L; 19R; 08R. Noticing there were no instrument approach procedures to the 08 runways and given the guidance in fom regarding runway selection priority for visual approaches; we decided a visual approach to 19L backed up with the RNAV 19L instrument approach procedure was our best option. Upon check-in with las approach; we were told to expect a visual to 08R. We requested instead the RNAV to 19L per the previously stated thought process and fom guidance. The controller granted our request; gave us a 330 degree vector off the arrival and advised us we would have a 3 mile final for a visual approach. Shortly thereafter; we heard other aircraft being cleared for the RNAV 19L approach. We queried ATC and stated that we too would like the RNAV 19L approach. The controller stated those aircraft were flying a 'different' RNAV 19L approach than the one we have and because nellis AFB pattern was active; we would be required by ATC to fly the short final. Apparently there is a charted RNAV visual approach in existence that we do not have. After handing off to the next controller; we were given a vector that approximated a left base leg. The airport was called out to us at our 11 O'clock position. Given the dazzling lights of las vegas; we could not identify the airport just yet and responded to the controller that we were still searching for it. To my surprise; the next instruction was to maintain our current heading of 240 degrees; join the 19L final and cleared for the visual approach. I don't recall ever being cleared for a visual approach without confirming either the airfield or the preceding aircraft in sight. We maintained heading and continued to search for the airport. With the background lights of las vegas; we could clearly see terrain between us and the final approach course and the terrain mode on my navigation display was clear of any terrain indications. Approaching the peak of the terrain; I initiated a shallow descent. Shortly thereafter we received aural terrain indications. I began to arrest the descent and noted green shaded terrain on my primary navigation display while keeping clear visibility on the terrain out the window. We then received a GPWS warning so I performed the GPWS escape maneuver as required. The warnings ceased almost immediately upon initiation of the maneuver. No engine exceedance was noted and we continued maneuvering for the approach.a number of factors contributed to this. Nothing in the ATIS indicated nellis activity would affect the use of runway 19L as advertised so it was not available for consideration during approach planning. Not having a version of the RNAV 19L that other aircraft were apparently using for course guidance was quite a surprise and could not have been anticipated in our planning. Being cleared by ATC for a visual approach after stating we did not have the airfield in sight is not good practice. Visually searching for the airfield distracted me from complete focus on our vertical position with regard to the terrain; despite the fact I remained in full visual contact with said terrain. In the future; I will refuse to accept ATC clearance for a visual approach after stating I do not have the field in sight and request vectors (at minimum vectoring altitude) until I do. Instrument approach procedures for the 08 runways would have definitely altered the decision-making matrix here. It is quite surprising that an airfield with such high usage as las; located in an area with rapidly rising terrain does not have any kind of approach guidance to the 08 runways.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier Captain reported receiving a terrain warning while on a visual approach into Las Vegas.

Narrative: Arriving into LAS on the TYSSN 5 arrival at night. ATIS advertised visual approaches to runways 19L; 19R; 08R. Noticing there were no instrument approach procedures to the 08 runways and given the guidance in FOM regarding runway selection priority for visual approaches; we decided a visual approach to 19L backed up with the RNAV 19L instrument approach procedure was our best option. Upon check-in with LAS approach; we were told to expect a visual to 08R. We requested instead the RNAV to 19L per the previously stated thought process and FOM guidance. The controller granted our request; gave us a 330 degree vector off the arrival and advised us we would have a 3 mile final for a visual approach. Shortly thereafter; we heard other aircraft being cleared for the RNAV 19L approach. We queried ATC and stated that we too would like the RNAV 19L approach. The controller stated those aircraft were flying a 'different' RNAV 19L approach than the one we have and because Nellis AFB pattern was active; we would be required by ATC to fly the short final. Apparently there is a charted RNAV visual approach in existence that we do not have. After handing off to the next controller; we were given a vector that approximated a left base leg. The airport was called out to us at our 11 O'clock position. Given the dazzling lights of Las Vegas; we could not identify the airport just yet and responded to the controller that we were still searching for it. To my surprise; the next instruction was to maintain our current heading of 240 degrees; join the 19L final and cleared for the visual approach. I don't recall ever being cleared for a visual approach without confirming either the airfield or the preceding aircraft in sight. We maintained heading and continued to search for the airport. With the background lights of Las Vegas; we could clearly see terrain between us and the final approach course and the terrain mode on my navigation display was clear of any terrain indications. Approaching the peak of the terrain; I initiated a shallow descent. Shortly thereafter we received aural terrain indications. I began to arrest the descent and noted green shaded terrain on my primary navigation display while keeping clear visibility on the terrain out the window. We then received a GPWS warning so I performed the GPWS escape maneuver as required. The warnings ceased almost immediately upon initiation of the maneuver. No engine exceedance was noted and we continued maneuvering for the approach.A number of factors contributed to this. Nothing in the ATIS indicated Nellis activity would affect the use of runway 19L as advertised so it was not available for consideration during approach planning. Not having a version of the RNAV 19L that other aircraft were apparently using for course guidance was quite a surprise and could not have been anticipated in our planning. Being cleared by ATC for a visual approach after stating we did not have the airfield in sight is not good practice. Visually searching for the airfield distracted me from complete focus on our vertical position with regard to the terrain; despite the fact I remained in full visual contact with said terrain. In the future; I will refuse to accept ATC clearance for a visual approach after stating I do not have the field in sight and request vectors (at minimum vectoring altitude) until I do. Instrument approach procedures for the 08 runways would have definitely altered the decision-making matrix here. It is quite surprising that an airfield with such high usage as LAS; located in an area with rapidly rising terrain does not have any kind of approach guidance to the 08 runways.

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.