Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 150
Situational Awareness
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Weather; Human Factors
I have flown the visual to Runway 8 at ITO a few times. Was aware from experience and briefing materials that it is difficult to be wings level at 1000 ft. It was the FOs (First Officer) first time flying the arrival. I stressed this point on the briefing; which I believe to have helped set up the FO to over think the approach. We were initially high as ATC switched from Runway 26 to 8. The FO got back on profile aggressively and in fact got below the profile; but seemed to be in the mindset that he was still behind. We were leveled off at 2200 ft.; our last cleared altitude by ATC. It was a good altitude provided we stayed along the coast. He [was] established on a heading which created a base leg that would allow for us to be wings level at 1000 ft.; but also transitioned 2 NM inland.I noticed this; but elected not to say anything as 1) My technique is not the only one. 2) When I saw that we were below profile and still 12 NM from the field; I challenged him when he asked for gear down. Recognizing that this second point is a sure way for CRM to break down. To complicate matters there was turbulence (the Release had an unusual note 'low level turb on leeward side of terrain...use caution') and while we were below the scattered layer over the terrain a few stray clouds did impede our heading.The terrain from the coast while appearing gentle rises rapidly. I became uncomfortable moments prior to the GPWS warning as the RADIO ALT populated reinforcing that we were too low. The aircraft rolled right (I thought due to turbulence; but upon discussion it was to stay clear of clouds) followed by a GPWS caution which was immediately cut short and a warning ensued. He delayed the escape maneuver rolled away from the terrain. As I called for the escape maneuver the GPWS conflict was resolved.
While on approach to Runway 8 at ITO we had the airfield visual and were subsequently cleared for the visual approach from the southwest. I made a right turn and continued descent to 2100 ft. MSL in order to get below the scattered deck of clouds approximately 4000 ft. MSL. The turn to the east was in order to create a bit more of a base turn in order to create a longer final; however; in doing so I was also flying towards the rising terrain.Upon maneuvering to this base heading; I made a 30-degree banked turn to the southeast to further avoid a cloud. Upon doing so; turned more directly towards the rising terrain. Upon doing so the GPWS activated and alerted us about the terrain; after which I should have performed the terrain escape maneuver but I elected not to do that because we would have very quickly climbed into IMC conditions. So I just reversed the turn direction immediately and the GPWS warning silenced. My base leg; which was approximately 1300 ft. radio altitude; continued the rest of the way to land uneventfully on Runway 8 at ITO.Even though we had talked about the terrain being a factor and all of the GPWS alerts crews had been getting on their way into ITO; we could have planned better and planned for an even shorter base and final in order to make the terrain even less of an issue. If any deviations were needed to be made in order to stay visual; they should have been made away from the terrain not towards it.
Air Carrier flight crew reported receiving a GPWS terrain alert on a visual approach to ITO.