Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Gusty Winds
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
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: Fatigue; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Check Pilot; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During my initial IOE (Initial Operating Experience) pairing we were flying ZZZ turns out of ZZZ1. On our last night while on the ZZZZZ2 arrival we had past the ZZZZZ intersection and were given a vector; told to descend to 4;000 feet and to expect an approach to Runway XX. The Captain and I both felt landing on [Runway] XX was a poor idea and so we requested the approach for [Runway] XYL. We were told [Runway] XYL was unavailable and given the option to land [Runway] XZL or [Runway] XYR. The Captain and I determined [Runway] XYR was the best option based on the reported winds. We were then given vectors to establish us on final for [Runway] XYR. The weather was for the approach with gusty winds from the right. We initially followed the glide slope indicator. Sometime during the approach; I transitioned to the PAPI for glide path reference. Around 1;000 feet AFE we noticed the glide slope indicator was showing us low; but the PAPI indicated on path. We quickly realized the PAPI and GS were not coincident. We received three Ground Proximity Warning System calls for 'glide slope' and decided to remain on the PAPI since we were in visual conditions. By following the PAPI we landed in the touchdown zone; safely exited the runway and taxied to the ramp. After shutdown we reviewed the NOTAMs and found no mention of the PAPI and GS not being coincident. However; on further examination of the approach chart; I found a note that the VGSI (Vertical Glideslope Indicator) and ILS glide path are not coincident. Due to last minute runway changes on approach we missed the note informing us that the VGSI and ILS glide path were not coincident. We could have asked for an extended vector to give us more time to review the approach chart. We could have also asked tower to verify the discrepancy between the PAPI and the GS.


Second narrative: While conducting IOE on the 4th hub-turn of a brand new student; the entire flight the ATIS for ZZZ was calling for landing on Runway XX. We discussed our options; and had a lengthy conversation in cruise about short runways; APS (Auto Pilot System) performance data; and decision making. We decided that we were not going to take Runway XX and we were going to ask for Runway XYL. Also; we were supposed performed a no auto-throttle; no autopilot; no Flight Director; approach and landing. Upon checking in with ZZZ arrival; they assigned us Runway XX; which I responded 'unable'; and requested [Runway] XYL. Then; a series of communications occurred between ATC and us; about options; weather (specifically winds); and traffic; while descending to what appear to be vectors for Runway XX. At the end; we could not get Runway XYL (as we planned); and at the last minute were assigned Runway XYR; and vectors for it. I told the student 'no problem'; we are doing a visual approach with no automation; and we have visual conditions. I proceeded to do a 'quick brief' to the student; and set up the radios for RWY XYR; and then started 'teaching'. Short vectors for the visual; and insight the FAF; everything was looking 'good.' About 1;000 feet we had the first 'g/s' announcement. We were on the PAPI and visually we looked 'right on'. I re-cycled and verified the ILS frequency; and then the HUD (Heads Up Display) for the proper ID; and everything checked; so we continued. Then; we had the 2nd 'G/S' announcement. Now; I was confused; reassessed the configuration of the airplane; and position; terrain; and we were right on G/S. I asked the student 'do you feel low or high'; he told me I am right on; which I responded I agreed'....continue...we concentrated on the winds and the x-wind since momentarily the student lost the corrections. We landed. We went to the hotel; and had a discussion with the student about the situation and the safety program philosophy; history; and data entry. I told him that we will be entering one. We continue IOE. After the final leg and IOE was over; and prior to entering the ASAP; while reviewing the plates; the student found the note on the approach chart of the VGSI (Vertical Glide Slope Indicator) and ILS not coincident. 1. ATC pressure to land in a 6;300 feet runway under gusty conditions. 2. Last minute change to the desired plan and discussed runway. 3. 4-hub-turn day. 4. Failure by the [Check Airman] to read the notes. 1. ZZZ to update their ATIS properly; not at the last minute. 2. ZZZ approach not to assigned Runway XX. 3. For ZZZ Approach Controller to be more accommodating to our needs. 4. For the LCA to read the notes.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew conducting an IOE reported they ignored Ground Proximity Warning System alerts during approach to landing.