JC:
That assumes the obstruction clearance analysis was done correctly and the certification requirements were actually met for this approach ? Can you verify that ?
IF the Google Earth elevation data is accurate, then flying this approach on a 3.20 degree PAPI WILL take you to within 55 feet of terrain at just over 1/2 mile from the runway when you are 255 feet above threshold elevation.
If in your "opinion" you think that this is an acceptable risk to take in a large widebody aircraft, flying at 170 knots, 55 feet over terrain 1/2 mile final, in total darkness, then so be it. Apparently the FAA agrees with you (assuming they didn't screw up when they certified it), in which case I say you are both nuts.
Now maybe the Google elevation data is in error, or I've made a calculation error (I doubt it), then by all means please correct my data. But don't tell me it's your "opinion" that just because the FAA says it's safe means that it really is.
There is indeed high terrain but it is not on centerline and just outside the PAPI 15 degree splay. That is why the PAPI is required at night. A professional flight crew should know that a VGSI is only good to 4 miles and within a 15 degree splay.
I assess FAA approach procedures all the time. Significant mistakes are very rare at a major airport like this one.
The U.S. VGSI criteria require a 1 degree obstacle clearance plane, which starts at approximately 1,000 feet from the approach end of the runway and crosses the threshold at the TCH. Thus, that is almost 50 feet of obstacle clearance at the threshold.
Where they apparently first hit the threes they were almost 200 feet below the PAPI vertical on slope.
If the FAA made any mistake in the design of the final segment of the two Runway 18 approaches and/or the alignment of the PAPI, it will come out in the NTSB's report. That approach is presently being reviewed with an electron microscope, so to speak, by the NTSB.