Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Situational Awareness
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Full approach was loaded into FMS after runway change was given. PF called field in sight and PM notified ATC. Visual approach has was given. Crew agreed to activate vectors; and followed 3 degree slope to the final approach fix. This fix will take the aircraft well below the visual approach profile. PM noticed the low altitude and PF started to level and continued to configure and continued approach.  When flying a visual approach; the crew should follow the visual approach profile and not expect every FAF to give an altitude that will allow for a stabilized approach.
Briefed and set up for a visual approach to runway 25; backed up by the available VOR/DME final approach course. When cleared for a visual approach to runway 25; I set the altitude bug to 1;100; which is the published final fix altitude. I used the HDG and FLCH guidance modes and autopilot to maneuver outside the final fix.Below 2;000 feet when the LNAV course to the runway began to capture; the captain and I both became uncomfortable with the changing visual picture. I instinctively disconnected the autopilot and pulled up the nose to level off above 1;100 MSL; transitioning to a level right turn to final at approximately 1;400 MSL. During this turn I cross checked the primary altimeter with the published altitudes and noticed the radar altimeter flirting with 900 AGL over the extended centerline of the runway. After confirming we were above the minimum altitude; visually clear of terrain; and no obstacles indicated on the MFD terrain display; I felt it was appropriate to proceed with the approach.After aligning with the runway; I called for the final flap configuration; flaps 5; and the landing checklist. After selecting flaps 5; the captain advised possible late configuration. At this point; I felt the approach was stable; and to the best of my memory the altitude was 1;000 ft above the touchdown zone. In retrospect; I cannot be certain there was no deviation from the stabilized approach criteria because we were definitely within 200 feet of that procedural limit and distracted by the unusually low final fix altitude. This was not the expected approach profile.During this event and after landing; the captain and I both realized the VOR/DME Rwy 25 approach at MRLB does not conform to our stabilized approach criteria when flown at the published final approach fix altitude; and this detail was not briefed in preparation for the approach; despite reviewing all available charts. I did brief the unusual absence of notes on the approach plate(s). Also contributing to this event were unfamiliarity with the destination airport and low time in type. I strongly advise the company to expand our 10-7 airport information charts with an extra reminder that the VOR/DME Rwy 25 approach has an inappropriate altitude published at the final approach fix. There is no procedurally acceptable method or reason for descending all the way to 1;100 ft MSL outside the final fix when approaching this runway.
Air carrier flight crew reported that the FAF altitude for the VOR DME Runway 25 at MRLB is below 1000 feet AGL and will cause an unstabilized approach if the aircraft is not configured for landing prior to leaving 1300 MSL.