Flight crew reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning twice on a night visual approach to lci airpor...

Narrative:

A night visual approach was planned for runway 26 into lci. The conditions at the time of the arrival were VMC with winds out of the west at 12 KTS. Approximately 30-40 miles southwest of the airport we requested direct to dojen for RNAV 26. The plan was to use the RNAV 26 solely as electronic back up for runway 26 and cancel IFR when the airport was in sight and the ski area and corresponding terrain to the south of the airport were safely out of the way.about 6-7 miles east southeast of the airport; we picked up the runway and canceled IFR. From there; we squared up and proceeded towards the final approach course outside rezdi; but slightly inside zurot; which is where we intercepted and proceeded inbound to runway 26. The airplane was configured for landing at rezdi and the before landing checklist was then completed.the PAPI lights for runway 26 were out so we elected to follow the electronic glide slope to the runway. At about 2 miles from the runway threshold the 'terrain; pull up' warning first sounded. The aircraft was briefly leveled off and the warning went away. With the runway in sight; the approach was continued. Shortly after; at about 1 mile from the threshold; 'terrain; pull up' sounded again. The aircraft was again leveled off and the warning went away. From that point; the approach was continued and a safe landing was executed.suggestions: when using electronic guidance for VFR approaches to unfamiliar; or in this case; less frequently used airports; a closer review of the approach itself; RNAV 26 would have revealed that using that approach at night stated; 'landings to runway 26 at night not authorized.' this of course only applies to IFR operations and not visual approaches done under VFR. Upon closer inspection of additional information; the differing glideslope angles (4 degree PAPI and 3-degree electronic glideslope) would have been noticed and diversion to another airport carried out; since the 3 degree; electronic glideslope does not provide a way to make an approach to runway 26 without encroaching terrain clearance criteria.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Flight crew reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning twice on a night visual approach to LCI airport after failing to notice a steeper glide slope angle was required to avoid terrain.

Narrative: A night visual approach was planned for Runway 26 into LCI. The conditions at the time of the arrival were VMC with winds out of the west at 12 KTS. Approximately 30-40 miles southwest of the airport we requested direct to DOJEN for RNAV 26. The plan was to use the RNAV 26 solely as electronic back up for Runway 26 and cancel IFR when the airport was in sight and the ski area and corresponding terrain to the south of the airport were safely out of the way.About 6-7 miles east southeast of the airport; we picked up the runway and canceled IFR. From there; we squared up and proceeded towards the final approach course outside REZDI; but slightly inside ZUROT; which is where we intercepted and proceeded inbound to Runway 26. The airplane was configured for landing at REZDI and the before landing checklist was then completed.The PAPI lights for Runway 26 were out so we elected to follow the electronic glide slope to the runway. At about 2 miles from the runway threshold the 'Terrain; Pull UP' warning first sounded. The aircraft was briefly leveled off and the warning went away. With the runway in sight; the approach was continued. Shortly after; at about 1 mile from the threshold; 'Terrain; Pull up' sounded again. The aircraft was again leveled off and the warning went away. From that point; the approach was continued and a safe landing was executed.Suggestions: When using electronic guidance for VFR approaches to unfamiliar; or in this case; less frequently used airports; a closer review of the approach itself; RNAV 26 would have revealed that using that approach at night stated; 'Landings to Runway 26 at night not authorized.' This of course only applies to IFR operations and not Visual Approaches done under VFR. Upon closer inspection of additional information; the differing glideslope angles (4 degree PAPI and 3-degree electronic glideslope) would have been noticed and diversion to another airport carried out; since the 3 degree; electronic glideslope does not provide a way to make an approach to Runway 26 without encroaching terrain clearance criteria.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1613217
Time
Date	201901
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	LCI.Airport
State Reference	NH
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Light Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Captain Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Person 2
Function	Pilot Not Flying First Officer
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT

Flight crew reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning twice on a night visual approach to lci airport after failing to notice a steeper glide slope angle was required to avoid terrain.