Narrative:

We were planned to fly to ZZZ at night. The north 4000' of the runway at ZZZ is closed with equipment in the closed portion. All approach procedures to ZZZ aside from the surveillance radar approach are currently unusable. Runway xx at ZZZ has no PAPI. The vertical guidance provided by the FMC to land on runway xx at ZZZ terminates in the closed area of the runway which contains equipment. Runway xy (opposite direction) at ZZZ has a functioning PAPI; and FMC vertical guidance to runway xy is accurate. Weather; however included a tailwind component to land on a shortened runway at a 4000' field elevation with rising terrain just west of ZZZ.compounding this was a deferral of our aft; right main fuel pump which required us to carry extra fuel; translating to landing weights just a few thousand pounds below max landing weight.the first officer; who is still consolidating on the 767 was appropriately concerned about the flight; so I initiated a call to dispatch and the duty pilot to address considerations as a team. We reviewed the legal requirements and fom requirements to operate into ZZZ and agreed on a plan forward.without vertical guidance going to runway xx at night; we assessed a risk of becoming vertically destabilized. Either we'd use runway xx's TDZ in the FMC database and deliberately hold ourselves above the closed area of runway xx; clearing the equipment and settling down once across the threshold or we'd have to build a representative waypoint to improvise a glidepath to a spot about 4000' down the runway. Both of these options carried some risk or low altitude vertical destabilization; putting the tail of the plane through construction equipment; etc.runway xy had usable PAPI and FMC glidepaths; but proximity to terrain would requires us to maneuver somewhat tightly to the airport and deal with a tailwind. On review of visual approach requirements and new stabilized approach criteria; we decided that a landing on rwy xy would be preferable.en-route I calculated anticipated brake temps for no reverse and two engine reverse. With no reverse; the calculated brake temps would range into the 7s. With two engine reverse the calculated brake temps would go into the 4s. [Nearby airports] reported calm winds so we opted for a tighter approach with vertical guidance to runway xy and got alternate missed instructions from approach.maneuvering to intercept a 5 mile final at a 3 degree glidepath to runway xy wasn't easy due to a ridge (2000-3000 afe) about 5 miles west of the airport and associated rising terrain. This means there is a very narrow range of speeds and altitudes which will allow for a stable approach to runway xy without an unacceptable CFIT risk. We mitigated this risk by slowing abnormally and carrying more flaps to tighten our radius of turn. Even so; we were banking a full 25 degrees at flap 15 maneuvering speed in order to make this work. Not unsafe; but it did take some effort.we had to work hard in order to meet stabilized approach criteria (which we did) for a visual approach. Meeting our night-time visual approach requirement to complete alignment by 5nm was much more difficult due to terrain. Still we got in without abnormal sink rates; bank angles; etc.on landing; the nose was gently settled to the runway; which meant more energy than we wanted was absorbed by the brakes. We got a brake temp light and brake temps went into the high 5s. Mitigating the brake temperature issue required single-engine taxi.in the end we made this flight work; but we had to work very hard to do so. [Another larger airport] is 2 miles away; has functioning approaches and longer runways. We could have easily landed there and offloaded. This would have been safer. Between terrain; elevation; shortened runways; night; lack of vertical guidance; fuel pump deferrals; and administrative considerations from the fom we worked very hard.don't go to ZZZ at night until they get a PAPI or something set up to the displaced threshold to rwy xx. Rewrite night; visual approach requirements to change 'runway alignment complete by 5nm' to 'on briefed course' or something to that effect.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767 Captain reported challenging night approach due to numerous environmental and equipment factors.

Narrative: We were planned to fly to ZZZ at night. The north 4000' of the runway at ZZZ is closed with equipment in the closed portion. All approach procedures to ZZZ aside from the surveillance radar approach are currently unusable. Runway XX at ZZZ has no PAPI. The vertical guidance provided by the FMC to land on runway XX at ZZZ terminates in the closed area of the runway which contains equipment. Runway XY (opposite direction) at ZZZ has a functioning PAPI; and FMC vertical guidance to runway XY is accurate. Weather; however included a tailwind component to land on a shortened runway at a 4000' field elevation with rising terrain just west of ZZZ.Compounding this was a deferral of our aft; right main fuel pump which required us to carry extra fuel; translating to landing weights just a few thousand pounds below max landing weight.The First Officer; who is still consolidating on the 767 was appropriately concerned about the flight; so I initiated a call to dispatch and the duty pilot to address considerations as a team. We reviewed the legal requirements and FOM requirements to operate into ZZZ and agreed on a plan forward.Without vertical guidance going to runway XX at night; we assessed a risk of becoming vertically destabilized. Either we'd use Runway XX's TDZ in the FMC database and deliberately hold ourselves above the closed area of Runway XX; clearing the equipment and settling down once across the threshold or we'd have to build a representative waypoint to improvise a glidepath to a spot about 4000' down the runway. Both of these options carried some risk or low altitude vertical destabilization; putting the tail of the plane through construction equipment; etc.Runway XY had usable PAPI and FMC glidepaths; but proximity to terrain would requires us to maneuver somewhat tightly to the airport and deal with a tailwind. On review of visual approach requirements and new stabilized approach criteria; we decided that a landing on Rwy XY would be preferable.En-route I calculated anticipated brake temps for no reverse and two engine reverse. With no reverse; the calculated brake temps would range into the 7s. With two engine reverse the calculated brake temps would go into the 4s. [Nearby airports] reported calm winds so we opted for a tighter approach with vertical guidance to runway XY and got alternate missed instructions from Approach.Maneuvering to intercept a 5 mile final at a 3 degree glidepath to Runway XY wasn't easy due to a ridge (2000-3000 AFE) about 5 miles west of the airport and associated rising terrain. This means there is a very narrow range of speeds and altitudes which will allow for a stable approach to Runway XY without an unacceptable CFIT risk. We mitigated this risk by slowing abnormally and carrying more flaps to tighten our radius of turn. Even so; we were banking a full 25 degrees at Flap 15 maneuvering speed in order to make this work. Not unsafe; but it did take some effort.We had to work hard in order to meet stabilized approach criteria (which we did) for a visual approach. Meeting our night-time visual approach requirement to complete alignment by 5nm was much more difficult due to terrain. Still we got in without abnormal sink rates; bank angles; etc.On landing; the nose was gently settled to the runway; which meant more energy than we wanted was absorbed by the brakes. We got a Brake Temp light and brake temps went into the high 5s. Mitigating the brake temperature issue required single-engine taxi.In the end we made this flight work; but we had to work very hard to do so. [Another larger airport] is 2 miles away; has functioning approaches and longer runways. We could have easily landed there and offloaded. This would have been safer. Between terrain; elevation; shortened runways; night; lack of vertical guidance; fuel pump deferrals; and administrative considerations from the FOM we worked very hard.Don't go to ZZZ at night until they get a PAPI or something set up to the displaced threshold to rwy XX. Rewrite night; visual approach requirements to change 'Runway alignment complete by 5nm' to 'On briefed course' or something to that effect.

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.