B767-300 and 300 ER
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 75; Flight Crew Total 15000; Flight Crew Type 75
Situational Awareness
Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Due to strong gusty winds out of west; ATIS advised Stadium Visual approach Runway 29; Runway 22 for takeoff. The FMC did not contain the approach; so we built it as depicted. We put in altitudes and speeds for all fixes and threshold Runway 29. The JeppFD-Pro chart has nothing for SLIMR fix; so we put in a target so we would be stable prior and to avoid a 'slam dunk' approach. We planned on turning west and acquired the PAPI's and continuing; [but] never got to that point. On descent after GIMEE; ATC advised us of an altitude alert. First Officer (FO) stopped descent. As we turned west toward CHUMR and Runway 29; got an obstacle caution/warning. We were stable at 1000' and fully configured. Executed a go around; got vectors to ILS 22L; uneventful landing. [Another air carrier] following us on the Stadium Visual also received an altitude alert from ATC about the time we were executing the go around. Found it odd that 2 consecutive carriers would have altitude alerts in the same area; possible altimeter issue with ATC? As a GA pilot I compared the Jepp chart with the Foreflight chart and found the Foreflight chart had an additional target altitude 1500-2500' at SLIMR/Lincoln Park; the JeppFD-Pro chart has no such target altitude. This would have been helpful; believe we would have been higher at SLIMR. Not sure if this was an oversight or omission by Jepp or a well advised addition by NOS. We are Jepp certified and I only checked Foreflight just out of curiosity after the flight. I was informed that [the other air carrier] also uses JeppFD-Pro; so it may have been a similar issue as well.
I will build the habit of reviewing the [special airport remarks]; prior to briefing the approach; to make sure there are not any comments regarding the approach I am about to fly. Currently; I read through the [remarks] during cruise flight; then turn my focus to the approach chart to set up for the approach. Once we found out that Newark was using the Stadium Visual Runway 29 approach I located the approach plate and began studying the approach; including the notes listed. If we had reviewed the arrival procedures section of the [remarks]; we would have noticed that there is an approach in the FMC for the Stadium Visual that is labeled RNVV 29-. Knowing this information would have removed the perceived need to 'build' an approach in the FMC that fit the JeppFD-Pro profile listed on the Stadium Visual approach plate. We would have selected the RNVV 29- in the FMC and had the proper vertical path and altitude constraints - which the Stadium Visual approach plate did not provide. Fortunately; we receive excellent training for doing go-arounds. Once the decision was made; the go-around procedure was immediately executed and this flight had a successful ending.
B767-300 flight crew reported executing a go-around after receiving a low altitude alert from the Tower during the Stadium Visual to EWR Runway 29.