Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 20
Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
On descent into ZZZ; we set up for the visual to XX backed up by the ILS. I was the pilot flying. We were given a runway change from Runway XX to XY. We made the necessary changes and briefed them. The ILS frequency for XX and XY at ZZZ are the same. After we were not receiving a good signal on approach to XY; we asked Approach if they had switched from XX to XY. He responded roger and sent us to Tower. He sounded busy and both the Captain and I agreed that he had not really processed the question.Once with Tower; we asked the same thing and they advised us to let them know if we ever got a good signal while on approach. We didn't have good ILS guidance and the Captain suggested I click off the autopilot and hand-fly it down. I did so and was working to maneuver myself on final. I overshot final while continuing to descend. I was worried that this would trigger a GPWS warning as I could see that I was near high terrain to the south of the field. I adjusted my vertical speed as I corrected toward final; but still got a GPWS warning. I responded to the warning as I continued correcting back to runway centerline.We were immediately out of the GPWS threat and elected to continue the visual approach but we were left high after the response. It was here that I should have seen we were not in a good position to continue and should have gone around. As we continued down final; we were at idle thrust and flight spoilers were out as we continued to configure the aircraft. I don't believe that we were fully configured below 1000 ft.; which was outside of stabilized approach criteria; and we still had the flight spoilers extended - which; after review; was against company limitation. By 500 ft. we were fully configured but still fast and slightly high. Another opportunity to conduct a go-around. The power remained in idle for almost the entire approach. We landed on Runway XY.Due to poor maneuvering to final while on visual approach; an overshooting final resulted in a terrain warning. Rather than make the decision to terminate the approach there; we continued; which resulted in an unstabilized approach that continued to a landing. [The cause was also] failure to call a go-around when that was the appropriate course of action. When you think you should go around; go around. Don't wait for someone else to call it and don't continue an approach that isn't stable. Follow SOP and your training.
GPWS warning followed by an unstable approach into Runway XY in ZZZ. We were descending into ZZZ and were set up for Runway XX. Approach advised that winds had shifted and asked if we would like Runway XY. We accepted and began to set up for XY. When we had the airport in sight; we were cleared for the visual. As we armed the approach for the autopilot; we were told by Approach that the localizer and glideslope may not be working. My First Officer turned off the autopilot and began hand-flying the visual. He became distracted by configuring the airplane and was flying through the localizer when I informed him he needed to start his turn. As he began the turn he started descending; which caused a GPWS warning for a couple seconds due to terrain. We were confident of terrain clearance but leveled off until we were back on the localizer. Once we were on the localizer; we were high. We began our descent and continued configuring. We weren't fully configured until about 800 ft. AGL. We proceeded with the landing without further event.I think fatigue played a factor in our poor decision-making to continue the approach. We had a [before-dawn] wake-up call that morning and this was our 4th leg of the day. We had been dealing with thunderstorms and delays all day long.
CRJ-900 flight crew reported receiving a GPWS warning during an unstabilized approach and elected to continue the approach instead of safely executing a go-around.