Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D 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: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Procedure; Software and Automation; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Conditions were VMC and more that 10 statute miles visibility within the area surrounding ZZZ. Upon seeing and confirming the ZZZ airport to our Northwest; ATC cleared us for the visual approach. After clearance was provided I entered the downwind and both descended to and leveled off at approximately 2300 to 2400 feet.  Now this altitude is about 145 to 245 feet higher than traffic pattern altitude.  This additional altitude decision was due to the understanding of elevated terrain in the area as described in our company published page that was current and wanting to have what I felt was an adequate but slight additional safety buffer between the aircraft and this terrain. In level flight the aircraft had a GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) warning occur one time for a moment and then disappear nearly immediately.  When the warning occurred both pilots were already heads' up and eyes out with a clear visual of the area and the airport. At such time when the warning occurred it was determined that the best course of action was to hold altitude for the moment and the warning disappeared.  Upon the disappearance of the warning and the CRM (Crew Resource Management) of the situation; the Visual Approach was continued to a successful landing and positive result.Now as I do not recall the complete details of the event I can only speculate on a possible cause for this while in level flight. It may be due to not being on a perfect line for the downwind and sporadic changes in terrain within proximity of the aircraft for the safety system catch that change and to alert. Our company page does advise caution when conducting visual approaches into ZZZ due to elevated terrain and that GPWS warnings do occur in early descents and if one does occur to take appropriate action to ensure the safe completion of the flight. I believe the CRM with this situation was handled appropriately with respect to this publication. The company page for ZZZ states that the safety department has noticed a high rate of GPWS warnings with respect to landing in ZZZ. With respect to this a possible suggestion could include a little more detail on the pages for the area of the airport with recommended altitudes; or possibly change approach procedures in to the airport entirely to help combat these occurrences.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reported receiving a momentary GPWS warning while on downwind conducting a visual approach. The flight crew were in visual conditions with the airport in sight so they continued the approach.