Air carrier captain reported flying a standard visual approach to las when ATC had cleared them for ...

Narrative:

We had expected the RNAV arrival. We were then told we would expect a different runway and were given a clearance that after a fix would be cleared for the RNAV visual to the new runway. I pulled the approach out of the FMS and on my ipad and after asking my first officer; used heading select to aim him on a dogleg left base to intercept the final. The weather was typically clear with unlimited visibility; and we had done a brief for a visual approach backed up with the RNAV approach. The controller then gave us a heading to 245; which I answered but was probably blocked and I answered him again on the second call. He insisted that he had cleared us for the 'RNAV visual' which we had both misinterpreted. Landing was uneventful and after we got to the gate I called the TRACON to talk to the chief and find out how the miscommunication evolved. In talking with ATC by phone; I learned that we were certainly not the first to make this mistake. He told me that the charted visual is to protect an underlying helicopter route among other things.I then found out that there is an actual RNAV visual approach listed as rnvv in the FMS database ; not page 12-3. There is an 'all users' note on page 19-0 which we had missed as well. Unless you land on page 19-0-2 you will probably miss 19-0. When using the ipad I scrolled down to the RNAV page and did not know that there was more unseen below where I had put my finger. I do believe that there is a way to make sure that the term 'visual' and 'RNAV-visual' remain unconfused. That would be to do; as is common at sfo for example. Sfo has their visuals listed with names such as 'FMS bridge visual'...'tip toe visual' and 'quiet bridge visual'. Thus the underlying RNAV GPS waypoints and altitudes remain intact but the possible confusion about being cleared for a generic visual approach is eliminated. This simple name change could then protect underlying routes.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier Captain reported flying a standard visual approach to LAS when ATC had cleared them for a charted RNAV Visual Approach; resulting in a clearance deviation.

Narrative: We had expected the RNAV Arrival. We were then told we would expect a different runway and were given a clearance that after a fix would be cleared for the RNAV Visual to the new runway. I pulled the approach out of the FMS and on my iPad and after asking my First Officer; used heading select to aim him on a dogleg left base to intercept the final. The weather was typically clear with unlimited visibility; and we had done a brief for a Visual Approach backed up with the RNAV Approach. The controller then gave us a heading to 245; which I answered but was probably blocked and I answered him again on the second call. He insisted that he had cleared us for the 'RNAV Visual' which we had both misinterpreted. Landing was uneventful and after we got to the gate I called the TRACON to talk to the chief and find out how the miscommunication evolved. In talking with ATC by phone; I learned that we were certainly not the first to make this mistake. He told me that the Charted Visual is to protect an underlying helicopter route among other things.I then found out that there is an actual RNAV Visual Approach listed as RNVV in the FMS database ; not page 12-3. There is an 'All Users' note on page 19-0 which we had missed as well. Unless you land on page 19-0-2 you will probably miss 19-0. When using the iPad I scrolled down to the RNAV page and did not know that there was more unseen below where I had put my finger. I do believe that there is a way to make sure that the term 'VISUAL' and 'RNAV-visual' remain unconfused. That would be to do; as is common at SFO for example. SFO has their visuals listed with names such as 'FMS Bridge visual'...'Tip Toe visual' and 'Quiet Bridge visual'. Thus the underlying RNAV GPS waypoints and altitudes remain intact but the possible confusion about being cleared for a generic visual approach is eliminated. This simple name change could then protect underlying routes.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	1699662
Time
Date	201911
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	LAS.TRACON
State Reference	NV
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Pilot Not Flying Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Multiengine
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Track / Heading All Types

Air carrier captain reported flying a standard visual approach to las when ATC had cleared them for a charted RNAV visual approach; resulting in a clearance deviation.