Large Transport
Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 209; Flight Crew Total 4459; Flight Crew Type 2529
Physiological - Other
Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Chart Or Publication
ATC Altitude and heading query due to high terrain. MSO Runway 30 visual approach. Visual approach to Runway 30 conducted using [company] visual approach procedures. Runway 12 Approaches not available due to traffic. We asked for the ILS to Runway 12 but were told there would be a delay due to multiple aircraft using Runway 30.That approach was conducted in day VFR condition with clear skies and near unlimited visibility and calm winds. A few high clouds were in the area above 12;000 ft. with no clouds below. The airport was visible and runway in sight in excess of 30 miles. The approach was conducted without incident and the procedure worked well as far as altitude and airspeed control are concerned leading to a stabilized approach and uneventful landing. However; the first point on the FMGC built course is too far to the west and too close to the 9;884 ft peak to the west of the pilot built approach course. This first point MSO/165/15 is slightly west of the north south valley center leading north to MSO. This point is slightly west of the VOR B approach fix WURTH; which is on the 159 degree radial described here for reference.Coming from ZZZ on a north westerly course to MSO to within 30 miles of MSO we then turned slightly left to proceed direct to the fix WURTH to get lined up with the first point of the described visual course. These two points are almost co-located in distance but 6 radials different from MSO. Prior to reaching Worth the airport was reported in sight and clearance was given for a visual approach to Runway 30. We then proceeded direct to the first point on the visual approach (MSO/165/15) to fly the visual approach to the airport. This was a slight 5 degree right turn which left about a 60 degrees turn north to the inbound course to MSO. Staring at the mountain in front of us to the west was uncomfortable. Prior to turning on course ATC asked us about our intentions as it was starting to look alarming on their scope as we were now below their vectoring minimum altitude headed directly towards higher terrain to the west. We were descending to 8;000 ft. in the valley to meet the suggested altitude crossing the MSO/165/15 DME fix. Prior to the fix I had almost abandoned the approach procedures suggested. I in fact had reached for and turned the heading selector to the right to proceed north up the valley but had not yet pulled the knob to engage the heading select mode when the autopilot navigation started the right turn to early turn for course intercept. It worked as programmed without course overshoot and the rest of the approach was uneventful. But up to this point; due to our inbound heading to the first fix; which was entirely normal considering our filed route; the visual picture from the flight deck was starting to look alarming. I was concerned (even though we were in visual conditions and acutely aware of the terrain to our west) that the terrain warning EGPWS would alert; it did not. Having previously slowed to 210 kts; the time to high terrain on this heading was probable just outside of the EGPWS terrain warning envelope as we started the turn inbound to the north. At no time was the safety of the aircraft in doubt during this approach. But; it could have been much more comfortable for both the aircrew and ATC.
Large Transport aircraft Captain reported that while conducting a Runway 30 visual approach to MSO per company procedures; the approach path brought the aircraft uncomfortably close to terrain.