CRJ-200 flight crew reported an NMAC event during final approach for landing due to extending downwind longer than normal. The flight continued to a safe landing.
Synopsis
CRJ-200 flight crew reported an NMAC event during final approach for landing due to extending downwind longer than normal. The flight continued to a safe landing.
Narrative
While executing the final segment of the ZZZZZ 4 arrival into ZZZ; Approach cleared us to descend to 3000 ft. With the runway in sight we were cleared for the visual approach from a right downwind position. The Captain asked if I wanted 2000 ft. selected (the published crossing restriction over ZZZZZ1; the FAF for our backup approach; ILS Runway XL) and I said yes. I began the descent to 2000 ft. since we were abeam the FAF and too high for a turn inbound. After leveling off at 2;000 ft.; I started to configure and at that time we received a GPWS obstacle caution aural alert. We both saw several towers a few miles ahead and below our altitude. The Captain called for and I initiated a climb and right turn away from the obstacles and toward the extended runway centerline and the alert was silenced. We continued the approach and landed without further incident.Suggestions: It would have been a better plan to remain at 3000 ft. while extending the downwind another few miles and begin a more gradual descent to 2000 ft. on the base leg; completing the descent on final prior to intercepting the glidepath. Since the Captain and I have different techniques for flying visual approaches I could have briefed him in more detail as to what to expect so we were on the same page. Also; we could have had more awareness that this approach has a lower crossing restriction over the FAF than most approaches at 2000 MSL/1200 AGL.
Second reporter narrative
While descending to 3000 ft. on the downwind section of the ZZZZZ 4 arrival past the ZZZZZ2 Intersection we were cleared for the visual approach for XL in ZZZ. I asked my First Officer (FO) who was pilot flying if she would like 2000 ft. set for the final approach fix altitude at ZZZZZ1 she responded in the affirmative and mentioned that she planned to intercept the Final Approach Track outside of ZZZZZ1 and I set 2000 ft. We were slightly high and fast for an immediate turn toward ZZZZZ1 so we continued the downwind south of the final approach track in order to level off at 2000 ft. and slow down to configure for the approach. This took longer than I had anticipated and as I was realizing that we were likely at too low of an altitude for this segment of the approach the GPWS gave an Obstacle Caution alert; looking ahead I could see some towers a few miles ahead. Responding to this alert the FO then climbed and began to turn toward the final approach track. This silenced the GPWS and after evaluating our altitude and position determined that we could continue the approach and we landed without further incident.Day 0 XA38The approach was to XLSuggestions: I should have better evaluated the aircraft's altitude and speed prior to recommending setting the altitude for the final approach fix. ZZZZZ1 is also at a lower AGL than most final approach fixes we fly and I should have had better situational awareness of this fact. Choosing to intercept the glide slope at a higher altitude or stepping down on the FAT in accordance with the appropriate altitudes would have ensured my obstacle clearance and this event would have never happened.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.