Narrative:

I was sic aboard aircraft X. We flew the aircraft from ZZZ to eeo. Weather at meeker; colorado was VFR (clear with no clouds). I was pilot flying in the left seat. The PIC and I reviewed the eeo notes prior to departure. Inbound; we requested the RNAV (GPS) runway 3 instrument approach to practice for a night time arrival. Denver center cleared us for the approach via the rifle VOR transition. We briefed and executed the cdfa (continuous descent final approach) coupled technique . Airport elevation 6;415 ft. Dda was set to 8;210 ft. The CDU displayed a 3.09 degree glide path angle which the FMS/autopilot automatically captured. We discussed the plan view 7;754 ft obstacle depiction inside wagok on the final approach course and the profile note regarding 'visual segment - obstacles.' the crew also noted the 10-9 airport diagram runway information ball note 2 indicating that the runway 3 PAPI did not provide obstruction clearance beyond 2.5 NM from the threshold. All progressed well until petoy. At petoy or shortly thereafter; both pilots became concerned with terrain clearance. I disconnected the autopilot and hand flew well above the VNAV generated approach path. The PAPI was acquired approximately 2NM out prior to the 500 ft call for a stable visual approach. The experience was eye opening. Approximately 20 minutes after our arrival at eeo; another [company aircraft] made its approach. On deck; discussions between both crews revealed a very similar experience. I believe that both pics requested a [company] review of night operations at this airport. I completed simulator recurrent training recently. After completing all required events; I asked our instructor to load the eeo RNAV (GPS) runway 3 approach into the simulator. Again; we flew the rifle VOR transition using the coupled cdfa procedure/technique. The instructor confirmed that we set up the simulator flight deck (ap; FMS; VNAV; dda; automation; etc.) correctly for this approach. When cleared for the simulated approach; the 9;300 ft FAF altitude was placed in the altitude pre-selector. All went well to petoy. Nearing wagok and slightly above 8;720 ft we received a yellow GPWS warning and executed a missed approach. Again; the simulation was eye opening. Wagok is 7.1 NM from the threshold. The visibility required for CAT C minimums is 3 NM. For obstruction clearance; the PAPI is only available out to 2.5 NM from the threshold. The visual segment of the approach contains obstacles. It seems to me that continuous safe vertical guidance is not assured on this instrument approach...especially at night in mountainous terrain. Our instructor shared a NOAA or government approach plate that depicts a ridge line inside wagok. This terrain feature is not portrayed as clearly on our jeppesen charts. The instructor was also concerned about a safe night time approach. Along with the two [aircraft X] pics that operated into eeo on [date]; I now request a review of night mountainous flight operations at eeo. From having actually flown the eeo RNAV (GPS) runway 3 approach in daylight and practiced it again in the simulator (night simulation); I am very concerned about continued night flight operations at eeo. The issues associated with this approach have caught the attention of three [aircraft X] pics and an instructor. This practice seems to fly in the face of the [company] safety first policy. If [company] continues with night flight operations at eeo; I also request additional training on this approach and this airport.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Medium Transport aircraft Captain reported receiving a GPWS terrain caution while on the RNAV (GPS) RWY 3 approach to EEO airport. Charting issues were cited as contributing to the event.

Narrative: I was SIC aboard Aircraft X. We flew the aircraft from ZZZ to EEO. Weather at Meeker; Colorado was VFR (clear with no clouds). I was pilot flying in the left seat. The PIC and I reviewed the EEO Notes prior to departure. Inbound; we requested the RNAV (GPS) RWY 3 instrument approach to practice for a night time arrival. Denver Center cleared us for the approach via the Rifle VOR transition. We briefed and executed the CDFA (Continuous Descent Final Approach) coupled technique . Airport elevation 6;415 FT. DDA was set to 8;210 FT. The CDU displayed a 3.09 degree glide path angle which the FMS/autopilot automatically captured. We discussed the plan view 7;754 FT obstacle depiction inside WAGOK on the final approach course and the profile note regarding 'visual segment - obstacles.' The crew also noted the 10-9 airport diagram runway information ball note 2 indicating that the RWY 3 PAPI did not provide obstruction clearance beyond 2.5 NM from the threshold. All progressed well until PETOY. At PETOY or shortly thereafter; both pilots became concerned with terrain clearance. I disconnected the autopilot and hand flew well above the VNAV generated approach path. The PAPI was acquired approximately 2NM out prior to the 500 FT call for a stable visual approach. The experience was eye opening. Approximately 20 minutes after our arrival at EEO; another [company aircraft] made its approach. On deck; discussions between both crews revealed a very similar experience. I believe that both PICs requested a [company] review of night operations at this airport. I completed simulator recurrent training recently. After completing all required events; I asked our instructor to load the EEO RNAV (GPS) RWY 3 approach into the simulator. Again; we flew the Rifle VOR transition using the coupled CDFA procedure/technique. The instructor confirmed that we set up the simulator flight deck (AP; FMS; VNAV; DDA; automation; etc.) correctly for this approach. When cleared for the simulated approach; the 9;300 FT FAF altitude was placed in the altitude pre-selector. All went well to PETOY. Nearing WAGOK and slightly above 8;720 FT we received a yellow GPWS warning and executed a missed approach. Again; the simulation was eye opening. WAGOK is 7.1 NM from the threshold. The visibility required for CAT C minimums is 3 NM. For obstruction clearance; the PAPI is only available out to 2.5 NM from the threshold. The visual segment of the approach contains obstacles. It seems to me that continuous safe vertical guidance is not assured on this instrument approach...especially at night in mountainous terrain. Our instructor shared a NOAA or government approach plate that depicts a ridge line inside WAGOK. This terrain feature is not portrayed as clearly on our Jeppesen charts. The instructor was also concerned about a safe night time approach. Along with the two [Aircraft X] PICs that operated into EEO on [date]; I now request a review of night mountainous flight operations at EEO. From having actually flown the EEO RNAV (GPS) RWY 3 approach in daylight and practiced it again in the simulator (night simulation); I am very concerned about continued night flight operations at EEO. The issues associated with this approach have caught the attention of three [Aircraft X] PICs and an instructor. This practice seems to fly in the face of the [company] safety first policy. If [company] continues with night flight operations at EEO; I also request additional training on this approach and this airport.

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.