Narrative:

Terrain threat at abq; visual approach to runway 26 at night with weather cavu. Two years ago I flew into abq when the winds did not allow landing on runway 8 because tailwind limits would have been exceeded. Runway 3 would have had an acceptable tailwind for landing so we briefed runway 3 but found we were in range of the ATIS that they were using runway 26 visuals. I had been in abq many times as had my first officer; and neither of us had ever done a night visual to runway 26. My first officer had local knowledge of the terrain and was surprised they were landing runway 26 with no real time terrain information or published procedure for a visual approach. Many other aircraft; large and small; were landing on runway 26 and ATC entered us on a left downwind. We had briefed the terrain from all of the approach charts and the area chart. We discussed the terrain as we knew it from our personal experience. We entered runway 26 in to the FMS with a 3 degree glide path for reference and had the airport and runway 26 in sight at all times. We had the egpws on our navigational displays and all terrain was to our east. I was fully configured on a left base at 8500 ft MSL; 3.2 miles off the runway approach end and within 20 degrees south of extended center line and descending at 1000 ft per minute when abq tower called us and said; 'company XXX; you have a mountain 1000 ft below you; 1 mile in front of you.' needless to say; we leveled off and contemplated their statement. I went to center line with the runway in sight the whole time and at 8500 ft MSL and landed. At no time did we get any terrain caution or warning. The first officer and I spent time that night and the next day when it was light trying to figure out if the tower controller was wrong or we missed something. I called company/union safety and found out that we weren't the only crew or airline with terrain confusion at abq. Others at our company have had terrain warnings as had other air lines. It needs to be pointed out that our commercial pages have a caution about 'terrain east of runway 26 penetrates a 3 degree glide slope.' that statement in itself is misleading because the information is only allowed to be used for orientation; not for navigation. Since then; the union has shown the company that it's a danger landing on runway 26 at abq without any published visual procedure by taking some time in the simulator to recreate the scenario. I was told that they opened some eyes as to the potential for a terrain accident and that our company was close to being approved for building our own RNAV approaches and would do so at abq runway 26. I submitted a copy of another companies visual approach to abq runway 26 for reference. It uses radial and DME and arcs. The last time I spoke with union safety; I was told that our company stopped any work on this and; 'we're not spending any more money on this.' something needs to be done about this.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier on visual approach to Runway 26 at ABQ was alerted by ATC regarding terrain directly ahead; reporter stated no EGPWS alert activated.

Narrative: Terrain threat at ABQ; visual approach to Runway 26 at night with weather CAVU. Two years ago I flew into ABQ when the winds did not allow landing on Runway 8 because tailwind limits would have been exceeded. Runway 3 would have had an acceptable tailwind for landing so we briefed Runway 3 but found we were in range of the ATIS that they were using Runway 26 VISUALS. I had been in ABQ many times as had my First Officer; and neither of us had ever done a night visual to Runway 26. My First Officer had local knowledge of the terrain and was surprised they were landing Runway 26 with no real time terrain information or published procedure for a visual approach. Many other aircraft; large and small; were landing on Runway 26 and ATC entered us on a left downwind. We had briefed the terrain from all of the approach charts and the area chart. We discussed the terrain as we knew it from our personal experience. We entered Runway 26 in to the FMS with a 3 degree glide path for reference and had the airport and Runway 26 in sight at all times. We had the EGPWS on our navigational displays and all terrain was to our east. I was fully configured on a left base at 8500 FT MSL; 3.2 miles off the runway approach end and within 20 degrees south of extended center line and descending at 1000 FT per minute when ABQ Tower called us and said; 'Company XXX; you have a mountain 1000 FT below you; 1 mile in front of you.' Needless to say; we leveled off and contemplated their statement. I went to center line with the runway in sight the whole time and at 8500 FT MSL and landed. At no time did we get any terrain caution or warning. The First Officer and I spent time that night and the next day when it was light trying to figure out if the Tower Controller was wrong or we missed something. I called company/union safety and found out that we weren't the only crew or airline with terrain confusion at ABQ. Others at our company have had terrain warnings as had other air lines. It needs to be pointed out that our commercial pages have a caution about 'terrain east of Runway 26 penetrates a 3 degree glide slope.' That statement in itself is misleading because the information is only allowed to be used for ORIENTATION; NOT FOR NAVIGATION. Since then; the union has shown the company that it's a danger landing on Runway 26 at ABQ without any published visual procedure by taking some time in the simulator to recreate the scenario. I was told that they opened some eyes as to the potential for a terrain accident and that our company was close to being approved for building our own RNAV approaches and would do so at ABQ Runway 26. I submitted a copy of another companies visual approach to ABQ Runway 26 for reference. It uses radial and DME and arcs. The last time I spoke with union safety; I was told that our company stopped any work on this and; 'we're not spending any more money on this.' Something needs to be done about this.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.