Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BOI.Airport, ID
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C BOI
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approach to land visual conditions Runway 28R; after reviewing the airport information chart and highlights; and seeing it's a FOQA focus airport; special review of the airport procedures were conducted; a pictorial of the desired track in order to avoids terrain warnings and to comply with stabilized approach to land; the recommended tracks provided are fine for [smaller] aircraft; but I don't believe the recommendations is a good plan for the ERJ.I planned the downwind leg at slightly higher altitude to account for the terrain I will be flying over; set for 5000 ft.; airport elevation is 2870 ft. 1500 ft. AGL is set up for approximately 5000 ft. seemed appropriate downwind leg was approximately 1700 ft. AGL; after referencing the provided pictorial and squaring up a base everything seemed on target except the approach seemed higher than desired rolling out on final; on base I anticipated the need to hand fly the approach; FD and autopilot disengaged; aircraft was fully configured per stabilized criteria; continued the approach and correcting for stabilized approach; at 1000 ft. AGL; to regain PAPI a steeper descent was necessary; (one sink rake audible was sounded); announcing correcting for PAPI; I observed the VSI was 1000 ft. and trending for a stabilized approach; landing in touchdown zone was never in jeopardy; I arrested the sink rate; at same time 500 ft. audible sounded; Pilot Monitoring announced stable as I continued.I do not remember the sink rate audible came on once more prior or at the 500 ft. audible call or not; I don't remember if it sounded at the same time or not; VSI was within stable criteria; so I continued the approach and landed. This was a learning experience. To guide me and other pilots on how to address challenging airports; I have always like to fly an RNAV procedure VMC day and night; for the terrain separation and transition to a safe landing. I learned not to accept a day visual approach with such challenges ahead of me; to land Runway 28R; I would extend the downwind and request the appropriate transition for the RNV Y Runway 28R to clear obstacles and not be rushed into the approach. Another option is to request a left traffic for the visual Runway 28R/L. The need for clear suggestions for [Company] is needed as some of information is perfect for [a smaller aircraft]; but not suitable for ERJ. I continued the approach only as I felt a safe landing in touchdown zone was never in jeopardy; next time a go around will be executed; and ask questions later.


Second narrative: On an arrival to BOI on the KYANN3 to Runway 28R in visual conditions Controller cleared us for a visual approach. Captain (Pilot Flying); descended from bottom of the arrival down to 5000 ft. on downwind. We had carefully reviewed and briefed the arrival and approach. As we turned base to final we realized that we would be high and because of the terrain (AIC (Aeronautical Information Circular) cautions) we were very tight downwind and short base leg. Captain did an excellent job of making necessary adjustments but on short final VSI showed just at 1000 FPM for a brief moment and we got the sink rate warning approximately 700 ft. and then one again at approximately 500 ft. The landing was normal and routine from that point. Airport information charts describe the recommended ground path in order to avoid the terrain warning based on the RNP approach in the [smaller aircraft]. All published material for approaches into BOI appear to target approaches in the [smaller aircraft]. They are inappropriate and even misleading for flights into BOI on the E175. We followed the recommendations in the AIC and they simply do not work. Following this extremely beneficial learning experience; our recommendations are as follows: Due to KYANN3 arrival ending on north side of field close to high terrain; a normal visual approach should not be made. Only visual approaches that remain at 8000 ft. until descent to final can be made and following entire approach procedure should be made to Runway 28R/L. Ask for left traffic and fly a normal traffic pattern to Runway 28L/R. Request when conditions allow for arrival landing east on Runway 10L/R. Revise A to reflect these recommendations. It is nearly impossible to make visual approach without following one of these recommendations. The AIC describes a terrain avoidance procedure that falsely leads one to believe that a visual approach can be made in the ERJ and this is not the case.


Synopsis: ERJ flight crew reported issues with procedures not applicable to both fleet types with carrier.