Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Weather; Human Factors
During RNAV (RNP) M approach to ZZZ Runway XX; the crew of Aircraft X was made aware of company traffic (Aircraft Y) approaching ZZZ with a similar arrival time; as well as another company aircraft (Aircraft Z) requesting departure clearance. After descending on the approach to an altitude where the crew could remain VMC; the crew cancelled IFR to allow company traffic to obtain a clearance. Aircraft X crew broadcasted their position and FMC predicted landing time; and stated intentions to land Runway XX on CTAF. ZZZ radio advised Aircraft Z that they were released for departure. However; when Aircraft Z did not immediately depart or make a radio call stating intentions; the crew of Aircraft X queried them on the company frequency. Aircraft Z responded that they were not aware of their release; and then again contacted ZZZ radio to confirm.After receiving confirmation of their release; Aircraft Z announced that they were departing Runway YY. At this time there was a lack of clarity where Aircraft Z was on the airfield; and the crew of Aircraft X became uncomfortable with the developing situation. The crew discussed that there may be a need to discontinue the approach; but made one more attempt to communicate with Aircraft Z. Based on the presumed impending missed approach; the PF delayed calling for further configuration; and continued toward Runway XX visually; while the PM broadcasted Aircraft X's position; and attempted to determine Aircraft Y's position on the airfield. Ultimately; the crew initiated a non-standard missed approach with a climbing left turn; and announced on CTAF that they would be holding visually over the water north of ZZZ at 1;500 ft. During the missed approach turn; the crew experienced a GPWS caution for terrain that they visually determined to not be a factor. However; the PF did increase thrust and pitch to clear terrain by a wider margin. During visual holding; the PF maintained aircraft configuration at flaps 5 to allow for lower air speeds and improved maneuvering. While Aircraft X was completing a visual 360 degree turn north of ZZZ; Aircraft Z departed Runway YY with a left turn to the southeast; and Aircraft X announced their position and intention to land Runway XX on CTAF. At this time additional company traffic Aircraft Y broadcasted their position and estimated landing Runway YY within 1 minute of Aircraft X.Due to weather observed moving in southeast of ZZZ; the crew of Aircraft X determined the prudent action would be to make an additional visual holding pattern north of ZZZ to allow Aircraft Y to land; as opposed to flying a VFR downwind to Runway YY. To ensure Aircraft Y would have enough time to clear and that both aircraft would not be on approach from opposite directions at the same time; the PF of Aircraft X elected to enlarge the visual holding pattern to the north. Again; Aircraft X crew announced their position and intentions on CTAF. During the visual maneuver; the crew received another GPWS caution for terrain north of them and initiated a turn to the west. Visibility and cloud clearances were excellent in the area and the crew had all terrain well in sight. After Aircraft Y landed and while Aircraft X was maneuvering for a visual approach to Runway XX with raw ILS data tuned and monitored in the background; the crew observed that a cloud had blown in from the south across the final approach path to Runway XX; requiring the PF to fly below the glide path to maintain VMC. During this approach on short final; while on visual and ILS centerline but below glide path at approximately 800 feet; the crew received a glide slope alert which was silenced; and a persistent GPWS caution annunciation. Again; the aircraft was observed to be on centerline and well clear of all terrain; but in an attempt mitigate the GPWS alerts; the PF offset slightly left and continued a descent toward the runway. At approximately 600 feet the crew received a GPWS warning and command of pull up. The crew again observed that they were clear of all obstacles and continued to a landing without further incident.After reviewing the event; the crew determined that they should have initiated a missed approach and turn sooner and at the first indication that opposite direction traffic may become an issue. This would have prevented the crew from descending below 1;000 feet without being fully configured; and may have prevented the first GPWS caution. Although the weather supported holding in VMC; the crew could have requested an IFR clearance to climb to a higher holding altitude and follow traffic into Runway YY.
Air carrier First Officer reported confusion regarding the location of other company aircraft arriving and departing a non-towered airport. In addition; the reporter stated that a GPWS warning occurred during approach and the flight crew continued to landing after observing they were clear of obstacles.