ATR72 FLC IS ON VISUAL APCH TO RWY 5 WITH TFC TURNING BASE TO FINAL FOR RWY 23 WHEN THEY RECEIVE A GPWS ALERT. BECAUSE THEY CAN SEE THEY ARE ON GS AND NO TERRAIN PROB; THEY DECIDE TO CONTINUE APCH RATHER THAN GO MISSED DUE TO OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC.

Narrative

WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 5 INTO TRI-CITIES AT 12 MI SW. A GULFSTREAM WAS ON A CTLED DOWNWIND FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 23. BOTH OF US WERE ON TWR FREQ. WE WERE LINED UP ON THE LOC FOR RWY 23 USING THE VASI FOR RWY 5 FOR VERT GUIDANCE. AT APPROX 0.8 TO 1.0 MI FROM THE ARPT THE VASI SHOWED US SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE GS. THE RADAR ALTIMETER SHOWED US APPROX 700 FT. AT THIS TIME WE HAD FULL LNDG CONFIGN. ALSO; AT THIS POINT WE RECEIVED THE GPWS 'TERRAIN; TERRAIN' 'PULL UP; PULL UP.' THE GULFSTREAM WAS APPROX 3 MI OUT ON BASE TO FINAL FOR RWY 23. INSTEAD OF GOING AROUND AND RISKING A POTENTIAL MIDAIR CONFLICT WE RESOLVED UPON OBVIOUS INST AND VISUAL CUES WE SHOULD CONTINUE A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG. WE LANDED WITHIN THE TOUCHDOWN ZONE NORMALLY WITHOUT ANY ABRUPT CORRECTIVE ACTION. WE INFORMED THE TWR OF THE ALERT. THE COORDINATED DECISIONS BTWN THE PIC AND MYSELF WERE MADE FOR SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS EVEN THOUGH THE COMPANY PROC IS TO OBEY ALL GPWS AT NIGHT; NO MATTER IF ERRONEOUS OR VISUAL CUES COULD PERMIT OTHERWISE. I BELIEVE PROCEDURALLY AUTH SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE FLC IN VMC CONDITIONS (INCLUDING NIGHT) TO PREVENT OBVIOUS ERRONEOUS GPWS ALERTS TO BE DISREGARDED; ESPECIALLY IF SAFETY OF FLT IS A SERIOUS CONSIDERATION.