Narrative:

Approach to land visual conditions runway 28R; after reviewing the airport information chart and highlights; and seeing it's a foqa focus airport; special review of the airport procedures were conducted; a pictorial of the desired track in order to avoids terrain warnings and to comply with stabilized approach to land; the recommended tracks provided are fine for [smaller] aircraft; but I don't believe the recommendations is a good plan for the erj.I planned the downwind leg at slightly higher altitude to account for the terrain I will be flying over; set for 5000 ft.; airport elevation is 2870 ft. 1500 ft. AGL is set up for approximately 5000 ft. Seemed appropriate downwind leg was approximately 1700 ft. AGL; after referencing the provided pictorial and squaring up a base everything seemed on target except the approach seemed higher than desired rolling out on final; on base I anticipated the need to hand fly the approach; FD and autopilot disengaged; aircraft was fully configured per stabilized criteria; continued the approach and correcting for stabilized approach; at 1000 ft. AGL; to regain PAPI a steeper descent was necessary; (one sink rake audible was sounded); announcing correcting for PAPI; I observed the vsi was 1000 ft. And trending for a stabilized approach; landing in touchdown zone was never in jeopardy; I arrested the sink rate; at same time 500 ft. Audible sounded; pilot monitoring announced stable as I continued.I do not remember the sink rate audible came on once more prior or at the 500 ft. Audible call or not; I don't remember if it sounded at the same time or not; vsi was within stable criteria; so I continued the approach and landed. This was a learning experience. To guide me and other pilots on how to address challenging airports; I have always like to fly an RNAV procedure VMC day and night; for the terrain separation and transition to a safe landing. I learned not to accept a day visual approach with such challenges ahead of me; to land runway 28R; I would extend the downwind and request the appropriate transition for the rnv Y runway 28R to clear obstacles and not be rushed into the approach. Another option is to request a left traffic for the visual runway 28R/left. The need for clear suggestions for [company] is needed as some of information is perfect for [a smaller aircraft]; but not suitable for erj. I continued the approach only as I felt a safe landing in touchdown zone was never in jeopardy; next time a go around will be executed; and ask questions later.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ERJ flight crew reported issues with procedures not applicable to both fleet types with carrier.

Narrative: Approach to land visual conditions Runway 28R; after reviewing the airport information chart and highlights; and seeing it's a FOQA focus airport; special review of the airport procedures were conducted; a pictorial of the desired track in order to avoids terrain warnings and to comply with stabilized approach to land; the recommended tracks provided are fine for [smaller] aircraft; but I don't believe the recommendations is a good plan for the ERJ.I planned the downwind leg at slightly higher altitude to account for the terrain I will be flying over; set for 5000 ft.; airport elevation is 2870 ft. 1500 ft. AGL is set up for approximately 5000 ft. seemed appropriate downwind leg was approximately 1700 ft. AGL; after referencing the provided pictorial and squaring up a base everything seemed on target except the approach seemed higher than desired rolling out on final; on base I anticipated the need to hand fly the approach; FD and autopilot disengaged; aircraft was fully configured per stabilized criteria; continued the approach and correcting for stabilized approach; at 1000 ft. AGL; to regain PAPI a steeper descent was necessary; (one sink rake audible was sounded); announcing correcting for PAPI; I observed the VSI was 1000 ft. and trending for a stabilized approach; landing in touchdown zone was never in jeopardy; I arrested the sink rate; at same time 500 ft. audible sounded; Pilot Monitoring announced stable as I continued.I do not remember the sink rate audible came on once more prior or at the 500 ft. audible call or not; I don't remember if it sounded at the same time or not; VSI was within stable criteria; so I continued the approach and landed. This was a learning experience. To guide me and other pilots on how to address challenging airports; I have always like to fly an RNAV procedure VMC day and night; for the terrain separation and transition to a safe landing. I learned not to accept a day visual approach with such challenges ahead of me; to land Runway 28R; I would extend the downwind and request the appropriate transition for the RNV Y Runway 28R to clear obstacles and not be rushed into the approach. Another option is to request a left traffic for the visual Runway 28R/L. The need for clear suggestions for [Company] is needed as some of information is perfect for [a smaller aircraft]; but not suitable for ERJ. I continued the approach only as I felt a safe landing in touchdown zone was never in jeopardy; next time a go around will be executed; and ask questions later.

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.