Narrative:

ATIS WX at alb cavu and calm winds. Runway 19/1 is closed due to construction. Active is runway 28, VOR runway 28 is the only approach. We are running a little late and thought we might save some fuel if we landed runway 10. Runway 10 is in the operations manual. A quick check of alb chart says runway 10 is rarely used. Approach checked with tower and after about 45 seconds cleared us for a visual to runway 10, the field was in sight. It was the first officer's leg. There are no approachs to runway 10 nor is there any vertical guidance like VASI or PAPI. I put the hgs in the VMC mode selected a 3.00 GS and told the first officer I would help him with the vertical guidance. He came in a little high, love that HUD, and then settled down into a very stabilized, power up, 3.00 GS at 1500 ft AGL. Tower cleared us to land and the approach and landing were uneventful. As soon as we landed the first officer said he was now very uncomfortable with the approach and thought it was one of the dumbest things he had ever done in aviation. The reason, it was a full moon night and as we approached 175 ft radar altimeter, the radar altimeter started fluctuating and the first officer caught sight of many trees below us. He felt that we did not have a good grasp of where the terrain was on the approach because there were neither VASI's nor an ILS GS. I was comfortable with the HUD guidance. Later during the 2 hour hotel debrief we wondered if there is any terps relief to a runway. That is, if company can land an airplane, because it is listed in the operations manual, does that mean if you fly a 3.00 HUD GS you are guaranteed terrain clearance? Or did we fool ourselves? I know that we can't land runway 26, I think in bur, it's not in the manual. There needs to be some guidance in the fom. If we have terrain clearance using the HUD, that needs to be stated. If there is no guarantee of terrain clearance, then approachs at night or in marginal visibility conditions need to be specifically prohibited, ie, runway 10 in alb. Also, suggest an addition to alb chart warning about the high terrain off the approach end of runway 10. The terrain slopes up very rapidly off the approach end of runway 10. We also asked tower if they have any radar to warn us if we are getting too low, like abq. They said no.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE CAPT OF A B737, LANDED AT ALB, DISAGREES WITH HIS FO, PF, THAT THEY MADE A DANGEROUS LNDG ON RWY 10.

Narrative: ATIS WX AT ALB CAVU AND CALM WINDS. RWY 19/1 IS CLOSED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION. ACTIVE IS RWY 28, VOR RWY 28 IS THE ONLY APCH. WE ARE RUNNING A LITTLE LATE AND THOUGHT WE MIGHT SAVE SOME FUEL IF WE LANDED RWY 10. RWY 10 IS IN THE OPS MANUAL. A QUICK CHK OF ALB CHART SAYS RWY 10 IS RARELY USED. APCH CHKED WITH TWR AND AFTER ABOUT 45 SECONDS CLRED US FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 10, THE FIELD WAS IN SIGHT. IT WAS THE FO'S LEG. THERE ARE NO APCHS TO RWY 10 NOR IS THERE ANY VERT GUIDANCE LIKE VASI OR PAPI. I PUT THE HGS IN THE VMC MODE SELECTED A 3.00 GS AND TOLD THE FO I WOULD HELP HIM WITH THE VERT GUIDANCE. HE CAME IN A LITTLE HIGH, LOVE THAT HUD, AND THEN SETTLED DOWN INTO A VERY STABILIZED, PWR UP, 3.00 GS AT 1500 FT AGL. TWR CLRED US TO LAND AND THE APCH AND LNDG WERE UNEVENTFUL. AS SOON AS WE LANDED THE FO SAID HE WAS NOW VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE APCH AND THOUGHT IT WAS ONE OF THE DUMBEST THINGS HE HAD EVER DONE IN AVIATION. THE REASON, IT WAS A FULL MOON NIGHT AND AS WE APCHED 175 FT RADAR ALTIMETER, THE RADAR ALTIMETER STARTED FLUCTUATING AND THE FO CAUGHT SIGHT OF MANY TREES BELOW US. HE FELT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE A GOOD GRASP OF WHERE THE TERRAIN WAS ON THE APCH BECAUSE THERE WERE NEITHER VASI'S NOR AN ILS GS. I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THE HUD GUIDANCE. LATER DURING THE 2 HR HOTEL DEBRIEF WE WONDERED IF THERE IS ANY TERPS RELIEF TO A RWY. THAT IS, IF COMPANY CAN LAND AN AIRPLANE, BECAUSE IT IS LISTED IN THE OPS MANUAL, DOES THAT MEAN IF YOU FLY A 3.00 HUD GS YOU ARE GUARANTEED TERRAIN CLRNC? OR DID WE FOOL OURSELVES? I KNOW THAT WE CAN'T LAND RWY 26, I THINK IN BUR, IT'S NOT IN THE MANUAL. THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME GUIDANCE IN THE FOM. IF WE HAVE TERRAIN CLRNC USING THE HUD, THAT NEEDS TO BE STATED. IF THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF TERRAIN CLRNC, THEN APCHS AT NIGHT OR IN MARGINAL VISIBILITY CONDITIONS NEED TO BE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED, IE, RWY 10 IN ALB. ALSO, SUGGEST AN ADDITION TO ALB CHART WARNING ABOUT THE HIGH TERRAIN OFF THE APCH END OF RWY 10. THE TERRAIN SLOPES UP VERY RAPIDLY OFF THE APCH END OF RWY 10. WE ALSO ASKED TWR IF THEY HAVE ANY RADAR TO WARN US IF WE ARE GETTING TOO LOW, LIKE ABQ. THEY SAID NO.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.