EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Overrode Automation
Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Knowing that Runway XX would put us on a straight visual; while we were still in cruise; we thoroughly briefed the landing. There is rising terrain NE of ZZZ1 at the approach end of [Runway] XX necessitating close in maneuvering. Airport elevation is at XXXX so we decided to be fully configured with gear down and final flap selection at 7;500 feet 5NM from the Runway XX threshold to approximate a glide path. This would give us X;XXX feet buffer to get down. (Much more was briefed; this is just a highlight.) After we were switched from Center to ZZZ Approach we were told to expect vectors to Runway YY ILS. This was preferable because that would give us an instrument approach without terrain for visual backup; and it's within the 10 kt tailwind limit. However when we got switched to ZZZ Tower we were told they were not using YY and to expect vectors for a visual XX. We requested [Runway] YY again but this was refused by Tower; so we elected to get delayed vectors to allow time to set up XX again (we already had landing numbers and we had briefed it so it didn't take long). As had been briefed; we were fully configured 2;100 feet above field elevation at least 5 NM out and the FMS was used to draw an extended line from the Runway XX threshold to give better situational awareness of runway positioning during maneuvering. Green needles were used with the ILS frequency for Runway YY to give a visual indication of when we were approaching the runway centerline knowing that this would also give us reverse sensing and a false glide slope--this was briefed as well. My First Officer was flying but if it had been my leg I would've transferred controls to him anyway. I had flown with him for three days and seen him perform hand flown approaches and was supremely confident of his skills. And since we were being vectored in the NW sector for a right base to final to XX he would have the best view to make the turn to final. On final we got a visual GROUND PROX caution box on the PFD as well as aural 'glideslope' messages with an associated flashing caution some 3-6 times. Each time I canceled it and said disregard it's a false glideslope which was acknowledged by First Officer. First Officer had me cancel his flight director and he flew the visual raw data with me backing him up on descent rate; speed; and how it looked. He did a nice job and set it down without incident. [Unrelated] runways were NOTAMed closed. Runway XX PAPI was NOTAMed OTS. The reason to bring this attention is so that other crews will have notification that they may be required to land with minimal instrumentation backing them up on a visual. Other flight crews may not have the experience nor may benefit from mild weather condition. Please notify other crews that while [other] runways are closed they may be required to shoot a straight visual to XX near rising terrain; so that awareness may be raised and overall risk mitigated.
EMB/ERJ-145 flight crew reported continuing to an uneventful landing in spite of CFIT indications of multiple GPWS alerts during a visual final approach. Flight crew maintained visual clearance of the rising terrain.