Narrative:

We were expecting the lda approach to runway 6. The captain briefed the approach normally; including the single engine missed approach. While approaching the airport on about a 240 degree heading; approach reported that an airplane in front of us got the airport in sight through about 7;500 ft and was making a visual approach to runway 24. They asked if we would like to do the same. I am aware that we are not permitted to do night visual approaches into roa unless on a published portion of an approach; however; neither of us remembered it at the time.we did what crews do all the time and accepted a straight in visual approach instead of doing a long procedure to get into the airport. I briefed the changes to the approach while the captain continued to fly the airplane. Winds were [from] 120 at 5 KTS and the performance numbers showed we had plenty of runway. The airport and proceeding traffic came into sight as we passed through 7;000 ft. We were cleared for the visual approach and began following the 3 degree snowflake. At approximately 3;000 ft we received a terrain caution followed shortly by a warning 'terrain; pull up'. We added power and begin a climb until we were clear of the conflict.after we were clear of the conflict; we were both certain we were still in a position to make a normal landing. The rest of the flight was uneventful. It should be noted that both pilots were in terrain mode on the mfd and did not notice any abnormal indications until the egpws warning. We also never received any low altitude alert from ATC or any comment about our altitude.this event was caused by a number of things lining up at the same time. I think the biggest factor was the last minute runway change. I am confident that if we would have flown the lda 6 into the airport as previously briefed; this flight would have been uneventful. As does any last minute runway change; it causes the crew to throw most of everything that was previously briefed out the window and scramble to throw together a new plan. [Attributing] factors were certainly complacency.while I wouldn't use the word fatigued; it was leg 5 out of 6 on an almost 12 hour day. The only break we were able to take was a quick dash into the terminal to grab lunch. This was only able to happen because of an early arrival earlier in the day. No matter how well rested you were to begin [with]; no one is going to be 100% fresh at the tail end of that day.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A commuter jet crew accepted a night visual approach to Runway 24 at ROA in contravention to company policy. Passing 3;000 FT MSL they received and responded to an EGPWS terrain warning.

Narrative: We were expecting the LDA approach to Runway 6. The Captain briefed the approach normally; including the single engine missed approach. While approaching the airport on about a 240 degree heading; Approach reported that an airplane in front of us got the airport in sight through about 7;500 FT and was making a visual approach to Runway 24. They asked if we would like to do the same. I am aware that we are not permitted to do night visual approaches into ROA unless on a published portion of an approach; however; neither of us remembered it at the time.We did what crews do all the time and accepted a straight in visual approach instead of doing a long procedure to get into the airport. I briefed the changes to the approach while the Captain continued to fly the airplane. Winds were [from] 120 at 5 KTS and the performance numbers showed we had plenty of runway. The airport and proceeding traffic came into sight as we passed through 7;000 FT. We were cleared for the visual approach and began following the 3 degree snowflake. At approximately 3;000 FT we received a terrain caution followed shortly by a warning 'Terrain; pull up'. We added power and begin a climb until we were clear of the conflict.After we were clear of the conflict; we were both certain we were still in a position to make a normal landing. The rest of the flight was uneventful. It should be noted that both pilots were in terrain mode on the MFD and did not notice any abnormal indications until the EGPWS warning. We also never received any low altitude alert from ATC or any comment about our altitude.This event was caused by a number of things lining up at the same time. I think the biggest factor was the last minute runway change. I am confident that if we would have flown the LDA 6 into the airport as previously briefed; this flight would have been uneventful. As does any last minute runway change; it causes the crew to throw most of everything that was previously briefed out the window and scramble to throw together a new plan. [Attributing] factors were certainly complacency.While I wouldn't use the word fatigued; it was leg 5 out of 6 on an almost 12 hour day. The only break we were able to take was a quick dash into the terminal to grab lunch. This was only able to happen because of an early arrival earlier in the day. No matter how well rested you were to begin [with]; no one is going to be 100% fresh at the tail end of that day.

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.