Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Situational Awareness
Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
During our arrival we were flying at 4;000 MSL direct to the LVZ VOR. After having visual of the field and airport beacon we were cleared for a visual approach to Runway 04 by AVP Approach Control. From there I began my speed reduction; descent and initiated a right traffic base leg. While in a stable descent of approximately 1;000 fpm we received an 'obstacle' aural caution message at 3;000 MSL; I then began an immediate level off and climb. While in the climb the caution turned into a warning and we then received the aural and flashing red GPWS 'Whoop-Whoop Pull-Up Pull-Up' twice. At that point I initiated more power and much larger climb rate to reach the MSA for the area of 4;000 MSA. The warnings cleared and we then recommenced a visual approach and landing to Runway 04 and requested approval of S turns from ATC to aid our descent; which was approved. We had no warnings or advisories from AVP ATC during or after the event. During a debrief at the gate we assumed that a structure depicted on the ILS approach chart with an MSL of 2551 was the reason for the warning. The weather at the time reporting at the field was VMC with a high overcast sky; 10NM of visibility and winds from the NW of 310/5K. Prior to the approach our briefing of the visual approach and landing included talk of the known terrain; obstacles and use of terrain mapping feature. Other considerations I took from the ILS approach chart was the noted tower just east of the LOC course abeam JISAG intersection; which is 2;483 FT MSL but depicted as a tower and looks more threatening than the 2;551 FT structure that is believed to be the culprit. I catered my approach to make sure I was within the 10.1 DME of IAVP to avoid such conflicts from occurring. However while taking care of one threat I failed to note the threat of a higher structure in the middle of projected and actual path flown. An overview of the 11-1 approach plate for AVP can easily illustrate how both structures are depicted differently and one is technically larger in length compared to the smaller structure with overall larger MSL altitude.I believe this incident is a great example of [the desirability of] taking the conservative approach. At one point in our arrival we had the opportunity of requesting direct HEAPP intersection; [an] initial fix on the LOC course. I however elected to stay on a more direct course towards the airport. Also a more in-depth look at the local terrain and obstacles should be considered. With safety always the number one consideration; this example should be used in training to show where and why being conservative and flying the long final is sometimes and in this case a must.
A CRJ flight crew accepted a night visual approach to Runway 04 at AVP and descended too low over terrain and obstacles south and east of the airport; triggering EGPWS Terrain and Pull Up warnings; to which they responded appropriately.