Narrative:

Cho ATIS was advertising visual approaches to runway 21. However; the wind was calm and the VASI for 21 was NOTAM'd unusable; so considering the 500 feet hill right about 2 miles off the approach end of the runway that is difficult to see at night; I requested runway 3 in the interests of greater safety. We were cleared for the visual to 3; and I performed a right downwind pattern. I had previously briefed all the obstacles on the plate; and we both agreed that 2;600 feet would provide an adequate margin of safety--about 1;500 feet above one tower; and 721 feet above the highest terrain. Prior to reaching a point abeam the final fix; in level flight; we received a terrain pull up warning. I immediately called 'max power; pulling up' as I added power and climbed; up to about 3;400 feet. We did not see any real obstacle; and so continued direct to the runway without further GPWS alerts.this airport has fairly mountainous terrain in the area; which is a huge threat at night. I thought I was being proactive enough by briefing all the threats and planning mitigating strategies; but I now believe there is just too much terrain in the area to be able to conduct a visual approach safely at night; without being on an instrument approach. Even though it is possible the GPWS malfunctioned; I believe in the future it would be best to request vectors onto final; or even to perform the full instrument approach. In the future I will not accept a visual approach into cho at night; without at least being vectored onto a portion of an instrument approach. It's just too difficult to maintain visual separation from terrain I can't see!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ-700 Captain reported receiving a terrain warning from the GPWS on a night visual approach to CHO.

Narrative: CHO ATIS was advertising visual approaches to runway 21. However; the wind was calm and the VASI for 21 was NOTAM'd unusable; so considering the 500 feet hill right about 2 miles off the approach end of the runway that is difficult to see at night; I requested runway 3 in the interests of greater safety. We were cleared for the visual to 3; and I performed a right downwind pattern. I had previously briefed all the obstacles on the plate; and we both agreed that 2;600 feet would provide an adequate margin of safety--about 1;500 feet above one tower; and 721 feet above the highest terrain. Prior to reaching a point abeam the final fix; in level flight; we received a TERRAIN PULL UP warning. I immediately called 'Max Power; Pulling Up' as I added power and climbed; up to about 3;400 feet. We did not see any real obstacle; and so continued direct to the runway without further GPWS alerts.This airport has fairly mountainous terrain in the area; which is a huge threat at night. I thought I was being proactive enough by briefing all the threats and planning mitigating strategies; but I now believe there is just too much terrain in the area to be able to conduct a visual approach safely at night; without being on an instrument approach. Even though it is possible the GPWS malfunctioned; I believe in the future it would be best to request vectors onto final; or even to perform the full instrument approach. In the future I will not accept a visual approach into CHO at night; without at least being vectored onto a portion of an instrument approach. It's just too difficult to maintain visual separation from terrain I can't see!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.