Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RNO.Tower, NV
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The crew flew the RNAV X RWY to 34R at RNO in day clear weather with winds reported at 260/26G31. During the flare; the crew executed a go around due to a strong gust destabilizing the approach. During climb out; the Tower Controller called the winds stronger out of the West and suggested a visual approach to Runway 25. Although having reviewed the 10-7 Special Considerations page earlier in the flight; the crew did not recall the takeoff and landing restriction on Runway 25.The crew configured for a 5 mile visual approach to Runway 25; then briefed and commenced the approached. Descending on the approach with the terrain visible and safely below the aircraft; it became apparent that the terrain east of the airport would not allow a safe approach. At approximately the same time; our descent rate in combination with the terrain resulted in a brief 'Terrain' warning; the pilot flying adjusted the aircraft flight path and then executed a go-around. The crew then flew and landed from the RNAV X to RWY 34R. I believe rushing and a false sense of familiarity with the airport led to an incomplete recognition of all the information in the 10-7 pages. I have operated into RNO regularly but not often and always to light winds down the primary runway. Arrivals and approaches are briefed extensively and flown according to standards. The day of the event; we conducted a thorough briefing for the approach; to include reviewing the operating manual about the exact procedures for executing the EO (Engine out) SIDs at RNO and which RNAV approaches we were authorized to fly.Despite my review; to include Special Considerations/Restrictions; I did not refresh the [Runway] 7/25 restriction in my mind and in the moment I did not recall the critical restriction. Additionally at the time; I did not feel like we rushed the visual approach. However; I now realize that I was focused too much on flying a stable visual approach and landing into the wind and not taking the time to truly review the approach and missed approach. Take the time to thoroughly familiarize yourself with all the applicable notes during your airport review and briefings.


Second narrative: RNAV X 34R to RNO in day VMC; reported winds were very close to limits (260/26 G31). Due to an extremely strong gust which destabilized our approach we executed a go around. After max effort go around and stabilized climbing clean; Tower suggested we use Runway 25. Even though we had both reviewed the 10-7 pages earlier in the flight; at that particular moment we did not recall the prohibition to landing on that Runway. After agreeing that we would look at it; I as Pilot Monitoring set up the box for a visual by extending a 3 degree GS to an extended 5 mile Center Line to give us VTI.The Pilot Flying double checked the 10-9A page and the landing app. While still considering this option; we maneuvered towards the extended Center Line and set and then descended to an altitude above the depicted altitude in that area. Our rate of descent combined with rising terrain triggered the EPGWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) to a 'TERRAIN' call. The Pilot Flying immediately altered his flight path and the terrain remained visible and well below us. It became abundantly clear that a stable approach would not be possible and we abandoned this option. We opted for another attempt at the RNAV 34R; and despite strong gusty crosswinds were able to maintain a stable condition to touchdown and landing.Things I have taken away from this event: The winds Tower reports may not be the winds you experience at the Runway. By sticking to a ridged stable approach and associated Standard Operating Procedure's mantra we kept from bending metal; violating a FAR; exceeding a limit or attempting something really stupid. And although RNO is a complex city and we review the notes every time we go there; the [Runway] 25 note was momentarily forgotten. We reviewed the 10-9a pages but somehow forgot to review the 10-7 pages in that situation. A mistake I (or my First Officer) will never make again.I firmly believe that this is a onetime incident. A few moments either way and we would have missed the gust and landed uneventfully. And I have a hard time imagining that another crew; or me again; would ever forget the 10-7 notes in a complex city. But again thanks to our training department's dogma regarding stable approaches; we are self-reporting not something far worse.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported receiving an EGPWS terrain warning during descent on visual approach into RNO and subsequently performed a go-around. The crew stated they had not adequately reviewed the notes and restrictions for the runway and this may have contributed to the unstable approach.