Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CHO.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D CHO
ATC / advisory: Tower CHO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the approach in CHO on the visual backed up with the RNAV 21; we received a terrain warning alert. We tried to join the final for 21 but due to terrain that was to the left of the course we had a terrain warning. When the warning came on we climbed out until the warning stopped and we were clear of the terrain. After clear we leveled off and started to rejoin the final we realized that we were going to be too high for a stable approach. We executed a soft go around and advised tower. We requested a visual pattern back around for another approach. They approved our request and we join a downwind for runway 21. Once on the downwind for 21 we reloaded the RNAV 21 approach. We decided to make sure that we were clear of the terrain and extend our downwind clear of the terrain. Once we were clear we joined the RNAV approach course and landed in CHO without any more issues. The cause of the terrain warning was that [our] final [approach course] and center line of the runway were not aligned. We tried to line up with the runway too early and were too close to the terrain that was to the left of the final. We should have held off on turning final until we were closer to the approach course that was offset from the runway center line.Next time we do that approach we will make sure that we follow the approach as published and not join the final [too] soon.


Second narrative: While conducting a visual approach into CHO we received an audible terrain warning. We were on base preparing to intercept the CHO RNAV RWY 21 approach course outside of MUSOJ; descending to 2400 from 3000. The warning occurred slightly above level off. The high terrain was to the left. Upon receiving the warning I arrested our descent and added power; additionally the Captain advanced the thrust levers to the max power detent to aid in establishing a climb quicker. A go around was executed when it was determined we were too high at that point to make a safe landing. We did a traffic pattern; and re-intercepted the inbound course further out between EUCEUS and WITTO to give us more space [from] the high terrain; and landed safely.We were doing a visual approach and tried to intercept the approach too close to the FAF; we were aware of the terrain out the left side of the aircraft and I believed that we were far enough away from it. In hindsight we should have not done a full visual approach and instead gone farther out; giving us more distance from the high terrain.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported taking evasive action after receiving a GPWS terrain warning on a visual approach to CHO.