CRJ 900 flight crew reported Low Altitude Alert from ATC and a EGPWS Alert on approach.
Synopsis
CRJ 900 flight crew reported Low Altitude Alert from ATC and a EGPWS Alert on approach.
Narrative
The First Officer (FO) had briefed for a GPS approach to the airport. We were on a left downwind vector from Approach Control at 3000 ft. MSL and in beautiful; day VMC conditions. Abeam the airport; Approach Control asked and we reported the airport in sight. They then cleared us for a visual approach. The FO stated they were going to continue the downwind and set the altitude at 2200 ft. (FAF altitude for the previously briefed GPS approach). At this time; I noticed 2 other aircraft on the TCAS that appeared to be about 10 miles out; one of which was within a few hundred feet of our altitude and possibly also inbound to the airport. Approach had not notified us of any other traffic. We leveled off; traffic was now 7-8 miles away but still not in sight. Shortly after leveling Approach Control issued a low altitude alert for us. At this time I noticed 2 antennas below and to our left approximately 1 mile. Within a couple seconds of this; our Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) issued an Obstacle Caution; quickly followed by a Pull Up. We immediately climbed; and within a few seconds the alert silenced. We then re-established our visual approach and landed uneventfully. On our debrief; we identified the obstacles/antenna that set the EGPWS alert off. They were approximately 350 ft. below our altitude. Descending on a visual approach clearance too soon from a known safe vectoring altitude; to an altitude that was not sufficiently above all obstacles to not trigger the EGPWS alerts. Complacency from the weather being beautiful day; VMC conditions was a contributing factor. Distraction from a potential traffic conflict was also a contributing factor. During our debrief; we talked about simply maintaining the last assigned vectoring altitude; or MSA until established on the instrument approach that the visual approach is being backed up with; as we do for night visual approaches. This is actually what I have told many FOs to do many times in the past when cleared for a visual approach. This particular time though; I believe a few factors contributed to unintentionally not following this personal policy. I was distracted by the potential traffic conflict ahead (I've had to go around at this airport before for traffic); and was complacent in not being vigilant to first focus on the priority of our aircraft position. Also; the weather was beautiful; day VMC and visibility was great contributing to complacency. Additionally; this actually made the antennas less visible than they would've been at night with flashing lights. In the future; a briefing on what obstacles on the downwind could potentially be an issue should we subsequently be cleared for a visual approach. Bottom line though; is simply maintaining that last assigned vectored altitude from Approach Control; or the MSA until established on the IAP that the visual approach is being backed up with would have prevented this.
Second reporter narrative
While coming in to the airport and abeam it on the left downwind we were cleared by Tower for the visual approach to Runway XX; at the time we were at 3000 ft. and had put the RNAV for XX into the box and were using it for guidance for the visual approach as the ILS was Out of Service (OTS). I was the pilot flying and Captain was the pilot monitoring. At the time we were monitoring two aircraft that were near the final approach course and near our lower altitude that may be going into the airport. Looking to stay ahead of the aircraft I descended down to 2200 which was the FAF altitude to then start setting up so we could get an accurate vertical descent rate while the Captain looked for traffic still. Upon reaching 2200 we got a call from Tower giving us a low altitude alert. Just after the Captain noticed two towers off to our right that seemed close and then right after we got the obstacle oral warning and pull up so I disengaged the autopilot and added the thrust required and we climbed back up to clear the threat and once stabilized and level continued on the visual approach and landed without further incidence. Based off looking at the info on the ground about the tower height we were never any lower than 350-400 ft. above the obstacle and had further clearance as we never flew directly over either tower. The cause of the event was the early descent on the visual approach below the last safe altitude that was assigned by ATC before getting onto a published portion of the course where we would know we are safe from obstacles. Complacency was definitely a factor as well as we had briefed the highest obstacle which was to the north but did not look into ones to the south where we were coming from for the approach. Some suggestions for helping to avoid this from recurring are to ensure not to descend below the last assigned altitude from ATC on a visual unless we are closer to the final approach segment and can descend to a lower altitude and can ensure obstacle clearance. Additionally making sure to brief relevant tall obstacles especially when a visual approach is expected. Lastly practicing more visual approaches in training I really feel would be useful especially ones when using RNAV for guidance as it is very unusual and not always the most comfortable flying them.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.