Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Chart Or Publication; Procedure
In VMC conditions we were cleared for the RNAV GPS 34 in SWF. We were initially cleared to HELEP; told to maintain 3;000 until established and cleared for the approach. The first officer descended to 3;000 feet. We maintained 3;000 feet until turning inbound at MEPTE and then after established inbound descended to the charted altitude of 2500 feet and descended at approx. 700 FPM. At approximately 2 to 3 miles from the FAF (FILGA); level at 2500 feet; the aircraft EGPWS alerted us of 'landing gear' and 'whoop whoop pull up'. The RA indicated approximately 1200 AGL due to the ridge line under the final approach path. The first officer added power and began to pitch up in compliance with the EGPWS escape maneuver. After climbing approximately 2 or 300 feet the oral alert extinguished. We were still under the FPA (Flight Path Angle) and established on the final segment of the approach around 2800 feet; so we elected to complete the aircraft configuration and continue the visual approach inbound to 34. The flight landed and taxied to the gate with no further disruption. At no point did we descend to any altitude lower than charted minimums on an established segment of the approach. At no point were we ever in IMC and had visual contact with all terrain at all times. We also confirmed the altimeter setting with ATC and the current ATIS prior to commencing the approach and had an accurate and current altimeter setting.The EGPWS alerted us to terrain and issued the pull up aural warning.The close proximity of the terrain under the approach segment for the RNAV for 34 at 2500 feet.The first officer advanced power levers and pitched up until the alert stopped sounding.Perhaps we could have configured earlier on the approach or requested to stay higher than the charted altitude due to the higher terrain under the final approach segment. Perhaps the charted altitude may be too low for our aircraft EGPWS parameters at 2500 feet between MEPTE and FILGA.
I was pilot flying the approach RNAV 34 into SWF in VMC with the correct altimeter setting. I was on the published segment in between MEPTE and FILGA level at 2;500 ft. as shown on the plate; when prior to FILGA we received an EGPWS Landing Gear alert and a warning to Pull Up. I performed the maneuver in response to the warning and the message cleared at about 3;000 ft. where I intercepted the FPA that we were still below and continued the approach to a stable approach and landing in visual conditions. EGPWS warning occurred when established at the correct altitude on a published segment of the RNAV 34. We discussed the ridge line and rolling hills around the airport prior to the approach during the arrival briefing but did not expect to receive the warning when complying with the altitude restrictions. In response to the Warning; disconnected autopilot; increased thrust; pitched up to clear the warning. I am curious as to why on an established segment at the correct altitude this warning was received. Be aware of this possibly occurring when landing 34 due to the hills around the airport. Ensure that 2;500 ft. is the correct altitude to be charted between MEPTE and FILGA for the RNAV 34 because there were no NOTAMs on this approach stating otherwise.
Flight crew reported receiving a ground proximity warning while established at a published altitude on an RNAV approach to NY's Stewart International Airport.