B737-700
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 278
Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
This was our first time flying into EWR. We reviewed all information on the briefing pages as well as the airport information. Initially we planned an approach to Runway 22L. Early on; we learned the Stadium Visual to Runway 29 was in use. Being unfamiliar with the area and its landmarks; we did what we could to prepare for the approach. The visual approach was not in the database. The fixes on the approach were not in the database so we couldn't use the FMC to accurately fly the approach. There is a RNAV Y approach that closely resembled the charted visual approach. We loaded that approach for reference and briefed the similarities and differences between the approaches. We made a plan we felt we could comfortably follow. We were instructed to follow another aircraft on the approach. We watched him visually and on the map with reference to TCAS; and his track on the approach. We were confident the plan we made and were executing was within the requirements of the approach. We were at the listed positions and altitudes. As we turned final; at about six hundred feet AGL; we saw we were low on the PAPI. The First Officer (pilot flying) corrected smoothly toward the proper glide path. As that was happening; the EGPWS gave us an 'obstacle' caution. It sounded only once before we were on proper glide path. We continued the approach and landed uneventfully. If there are going to be charted visual approaches; build them into the FMC database for reference! At least load the listed fixes so we can manually do something about it. We asked for but were flatly denied the RNAV Y approach; which was very similar to the visual in use. Using RNP approaches allows pilots safety from terrain and situational dangers associated with the approach. They also provide consistency for the controllers.
We were on the Stadium Visual 29 approach at EWR. I was the pilot flying with the autopilot engaged. We were configured for landing and at 1;500 FT at SLIMR. After crossing SLIMR I set 500 FT in MCP and started a descent. I then noticed we were low on the PAPI and just at that time heard 'caution obstacle.' I immediately disconnected the autopilot and started a climb. Within seconds were on the normal PAPI glide path and in position for a safe and stabilized landing. We could clearly see the bridge ahead and below us. At no time did we descend below 500 FT until passing the bridge. We landed and then I realized I should have executed a missed approach according to our procedures.I felt the Captain and I did a very thorough arrival and approach briefing; especially since we were unfamiliar. I believe the descent rate after crossing SLIMR is what triggered the 'obstacle.' I think I was too focused on the ground track. If I would have looked sooner at the runway and saw that we were low on the PAPI; I would have corrected sooner and not have gotten the 'obstacle' caution.
B737 flight crew reports being asigned the Stadium Visual to Runway 29 at EWR. The charted visual is not part of the FMC database and the crew requests the RNAV Y Runway 29 and is denied. An EGPWS obstical caution is enunciated at 600 FT and the First Officer corrects to the PAPI and lands.