B737-400 crew received an egpws 'terrain, terrain' warning while flying a visual approach to tus run...

Attributes
ACN	541269
Time
Date	200201
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : tus.airport
State Reference	AZ
Altitude	msl single value : 6000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : u90.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-400
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 18000 flight time type : 2000
ASRS Report	541269
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter : weather inflight encounter other non adherence : company policies non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other other spatial deviation
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment : gpws other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	flight crew : became reoriented flight crew : took evasive action none taken : detected after the fact other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

Clear night, on vectors to intercept the localizer for runway 11L at tus. Level at 6000 ft, approximately 18 mi out, heading approximately 070 degrees and crossing the 290-295 degree radial of tus, the egpws gave a 'terrain, terrain' warning due to the 4682 ft peak just south of the localizer at 15 mi. What happened: the controller gave, and we accepted, a visual approach to runway 11L while we were approximately 18 mi out. The first officer (PF) began a normal descent for landing prior to intercepting the localizer. Mistake #1: as we were anticipating a visual, the runway 11L ILS approach was not thoroughly briefed. If it had been, the 4682 ft peak would have been noted. Mistake #2: due to a long day, some fatigue, complacency, and a clear night with unlimited visibility, we accepted a visual too far out and began a visual descent too soon. Mistake #3: ATC approach controller 'set us up' for a catastrophe by offering a visual outside of the peak. Why not wait until we were inside of it? The good news: technology saved the day! (...And precluded a CFIT accident).

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-400 CREW RECEIVED AN EGPWS 'TERRAIN, TERRAIN' WARNING WHILE FLYING A VISUAL APCH TO TUS RWY 11L AT NIGHT.

Narrative: CLR NIGHT, ON VECTORS TO INTERCEPT THE LOC FOR RWY 11L AT TUS. LEVEL AT 6000 FT, APPROX 18 MI OUT, HDG APPROX 070 DEGS AND XING THE 290-295 DEG RADIAL OF TUS, THE EGPWS GAVE A 'TERRAIN, TERRAIN' WARNING DUE TO THE 4682 FT PEAK JUST S OF THE LOC AT 15 MI. WHAT HAPPENED: THE CTLR GAVE, AND WE ACCEPTED, A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 11L WHILE WE WERE APPROX 18 MI OUT. THE FO (PF) BEGAN A NORMAL DSCNT FOR LNDG PRIOR TO INTERCEPTING THE LOC. MISTAKE #1: AS WE WERE ANTICIPATING A VISUAL, THE RWY 11L ILS APCH WAS NOT THOROUGHLY BRIEFED. IF IT HAD BEEN, THE 4682 FT PEAK WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTED. MISTAKE #2: DUE TO A LONG DAY, SOME FATIGUE, COMPLACENCY, AND A CLR NIGHT WITH UNLIMITED VISIBILITY, WE ACCEPTED A VISUAL TOO FAR OUT AND BEGAN A VISUAL DSCNT TOO SOON. MISTAKE #3: ATC APCH CTLR 'SET US UP' FOR A CATASTROPHE BY OFFERING A VISUAL OUTSIDE OF THE PEAK. WHY NOT WAIT UNTIL WE WERE INSIDE OF IT? THE GOOD NEWS: TECHNOLOGY SAVED THE DAY! (...AND PRECLUDED A CFIT ACCIDENT).

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.

B737-400 crew received an egpws 'terrain, terrain' warning while flying a visual approach to tus runway 11L at night.