Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Situational Awareness
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Human Factors
A night visual approach was planned for Runway 26 into LCI. The conditions at the time of the arrival were VMC with winds out of the west at 12 KTS. Approximately 30-40 miles southwest of the airport we requested direct to DOJEN for RNAV 26. The plan was to use the RNAV 26 solely as electronic back up for Runway 26 and cancel IFR when the airport was in sight and the ski area and corresponding terrain to the south of the airport were safely out of the way.About 6-7 miles east southeast of the airport; we picked up the runway and canceled IFR. From there; we squared up and proceeded towards the final approach course outside REZDI; but slightly inside ZUROT; which is where we intercepted and proceeded inbound to Runway 26. The airplane was configured for landing at REZDI and the before landing checklist was then completed.The PAPI lights for Runway 26 were out so we elected to follow the electronic glide slope to the runway. At about 2 miles from the runway threshold the 'Terrain; Pull UP' warning first sounded. The aircraft was briefly leveled off and the warning went away. With the runway in sight; the approach was continued. Shortly after; at about 1 mile from the threshold; 'Terrain; Pull up' sounded again. The aircraft was again leveled off and the warning went away. From that point; the approach was continued and a safe landing was executed.Suggestions: When using electronic guidance for VFR approaches to unfamiliar; or in this case; less frequently used airports; a closer review of the approach itself; RNAV 26 would have revealed that using that approach at night stated; 'Landings to Runway 26 at night not authorized.' This of course only applies to IFR operations and not Visual Approaches done under VFR. Upon closer inspection of additional information; the differing glideslope angles (4 degree PAPI and 3-degree electronic glideslope) would have been noticed and diversion to another airport carried out; since the 3 degree; electronic glideslope does not provide a way to make an approach to Runway 26 without encroaching terrain clearance criteria.
We were approaching LCI at night; and having both been there many times; we elected to ask to proceed to an IAF for 26 to execute our visual approach. We loaded the RNAV 26 (we noticed the PAPI for 26 was under service in the NOTAMs prior to departure) and had canceled the IFR by the time we reached the vicinity of the IAF for 26 and proceeded visually inbound while keeping the approach loaded as a backup.Prior to reaching the runway (I do not recall the exact position but it was within 3 miles of the airport); we received a GPWS aural 'Caution Obstacle' followed by a 'Pull-Up.' Likely; due to our familiarity with the airport the pilot flying leveled out while we were processing what was going on; as we believed we had knowledge of the area terrain as well as had continuous full sight of the runway environment. The level-out and/or forward progress was enough for the warning to cease and the landing continued without incident. During the entire time; we were lined up with the runway and at or above the electronic glide path.After landing; we reviewed the approach plate in more detail and discovered the notes 'night landing 26 NA' and 'visual segment-obstacles.' As we were only using the approach as a backup to our visual arrival (VFR in VMC); the approach plate did not get the full attention it needed in this case and there is no advisory/restriction in the chart supplement for night VFR arrivals to 26.I believe we encountered a 'catch 22' as we were not officially on the instrument approach but were using it to aid our nighttime visual arrival; especially with the PAPI out; which ended up contributing to the occurrence of the event (IAP restrictions and 3deg Glide path for the IAP and 4deg Glide path for the PAPI). Having been familiar with the airport checked our restricted airport list (no restriction for PAPI out) and discussed the obstacles; (the ski area in part but most importantly the hill that is located just off the left of the final approach [there is a tower on the hill as well]). I believe the surprise of GPWS activation was enough to delay the execution of the full GPWS escape maneuver; when it shouldn't have.I believe given an unfamiliar airport or area; I would have called for the execution without thought; however in this case the processing time (and pitch correction by the pilot flying) was enough for the warning to cease. I am not positive which obstacle triggered it; but I believe it was the hill off the left side of the aircraft (with tower atop); but I cannot be 100% sure. In my opinion; the PAPI for 26 is safety critical equipment at night and should be mandatory for a night arrival on 26; regardless of aircraft type. Other crews may do the same as we did and load the approach for back up to comply with SOP; not realizing that the FMS calculated glide path is shallower than the PAPI (info only contained in the Chart Supplement).
Flight crew reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning twice on a night visual approach to LCI airport after failing to notice a steeper glide slope angle was required to avoid terrain.