CRJ-200 flight crew reported auto pilot failed to track localizer and pilot descended below minimums; glide slope; and VASI resulting in a GPWS alert and CFTT event. First officer also reported pilot flying failed to execute a go around when alerted at minimums.
Synopsis
CRJ-200 flight crew reported auto pilot failed to track localizer and pilot descended below minimums; glide slope; and VASI resulting in a GPWS alert and CFTT event. First officer also reported pilot flying failed to execute a go around when alerted at minimums.
Narrative
Before starting the descent for ZZZ; current weather and NOTAMS were obtained for ZZZ. PF briefed an approach for LOC RWY XX. The glide slope was out of service. MDA was set for 1700 according to GS OUT Minimums on the approach plate. The descent was started momentarily after. We were vectored to intercept the localizer. The PF switched to green needles" to intercept the course. The autopilot had a hard time maintaining a straight course; and it kept swaying side to side. The aircraft was configured fully and the "Before Landing" checklist was completed. A Missed Approach altitude of 3000 was set. Before reaching the FAF; the PM read out a Groundspeed of 173 and told the PF he needed a descent rate of about 800 to 900 FPM to descend to landing. At 0.2 miles from FAF; the PF started a descent of 900 FPM. Upon reaching minimums; the PM called out "Missed Approach;" but the PF thought he saw lights and continued. Shortly after; the crew broke out and saw a VASI that indicated 4 Red Lights as well as a banking attitude. Shortly thereafter; the GLIDESLOPE EGPWS (Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System) aural alert sounded; and the PF initiated a Go-Around. At the same time; Tower said they saw the aircraft breaking out and said they were low. Tower then instructed the crew to Go-Around. The crew was already going around. The crew performed a Go-Around; and Tower instructed them to climb and maintain 3000. The crew then contacted Departure to receive further instructions for a second approach. The PF briefed the same approach but was going to stay in "White Needles" this time to intercept the course. The autopilot did a better job maintaining a straight course. The crew performed all the pertinent checklists. The crew executed the approach again and broke out at minimums. The aircraft landed without further incident and taxied to parking. The crew then debriefed the flight.The PF should have executed a Missed Approach when the PM called out "Missed Approach." This; along with an autopilot that was not maintaining a straight course; contributed to an unstable approach. We brief these things for a reason; and as pilots carrying passengers we need to always keep safety first. If the runway is not in sight; then go-around. It's simple as that."
Second reporter narrative
Shooting LOC XX into ZZZ we hit minimums. Upon reaching minimums I stated 'missed approach' verbally to which it was not executed. PF continued through minimums and declared 'runway in sight; landing' at which point we received; of what I thought was; an aural 'TOO LOW' warning and then were told by Tower; 'Aircraft X you're looking low; go around' to which we executed a missed approach procedure.Cause: PF fixating outside instead of inside; PM not stating missed approach a second time.Suggestions: As PF keep eyes inside and rely on PM to declare deviations/ visual cues.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.