Narrative:

We were cleared from cruise altitude to cross 25 mi east of eugene at FL250 (inbound for landing, approaching from the east, flying wbound). We complied. Then we were cleared to 11000 ft MSL, then to 5000 ft MSL. We complied. About 7 mi east of eugene, eugene approach cleared us for the visual approach (or so we thought). My first officer and I could not make out the airport through the haze although we could see all of the terrain and local landmarks. My copilot attempted to tune the OM NDB for us to navigation to for a base entry landing south. He was unable to do so and we told approach that we couldn't see the airport. Knowing that we were only 5 NM east. I descended to 4300 ft MSL crossing the east hills. The controller said 'I wouldn't descend below 4300 ft' with no call sign for us and no facility identify for him. I asked him if that comment was from him, for us, adding that it was difficult to pick out the airport 'due to the haze.' he retorted 'are you sure it isn't trees.' I responded that 'no it isn't because of the trees, how about a vector?' he gave us a vector west. Approaching 4100 ft MSL he said 'is altitude a problem?' I responded, 'no, unless you are no longer clearing us for a visual approach.' at this point he claimed not to have cleared us for a visual approach. We spotted the airport and then received a handoff to eugene tower and were cleared to land. After landing I walked over to the tower/TRACON facility and spoke to both the approach controller and his supervisor. I made the following observations: we believed we received a visual approach clearance from 5000 ft MSL. The approach controller never commented on our altitude deviation until 4300 ft MSL (change of 700 ft) and did so using non-conforming, non- SOP ATC phraseology. This (lack of) format reinforced our belief that we had received a visual approach clearance since he didn't immediately report an altitude deviation to us (initially of 100- 300 ft) and his comment could have (and was) taken as 'advisory only' to help us avoid terrain on a visual clearance. His response to our observation that visibility was limited because of haze was also without call signs, ATC identify, etc, and was clearly a remark that was smart- aleck, not corrective, and inflammatory in nature. His question 'is altitude a problem?' at 4100 ft MSL also was not corrective in nature. He should have said 'airline, flight XXX, climb immediately to 5000 ft.' I told him we expected immediate action on his part to notify us of any altitude deviation greater than 100 ft. After this discussion we all agreed that communication broke down, procedures were not correctly followed, and we all recognized that we all had to do better. For my crew's part, we pledged to be even more vigilant about receiving visual approach clrncs and then confirming them.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FLC MISINTERPRETED CLRNC. CTLR INTERVENED AFTER FLC DSNDED BELOW CLRNC ALT ON 'VISUAL APCH' IN LOW VISIBILITY CONDITIONS.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED FROM CRUISE ALT TO CROSS 25 MI E OF EUGENE AT FL250 (INBOUND FOR LNDG, APCHING FROM THE E, FLYING WBOUND). WE COMPLIED. THEN WE WERE CLRED TO 11000 FT MSL, THEN TO 5000 FT MSL. WE COMPLIED. ABOUT 7 MI E OF EUGENE, EUGENE APCH CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL APCH (OR SO WE THOUGHT). MY FO AND I COULD NOT MAKE OUT THE ARPT THROUGH THE HAZE ALTHOUGH WE COULD SEE ALL OF THE TERRAIN AND LCL LANDMARKS. MY COPLT ATTEMPTED TO TUNE THE OM NDB FOR US TO NAV TO FOR A BASE ENTRY LNDG S. HE WAS UNABLE TO DO SO AND WE TOLD APCH THAT WE COULDN'T SEE THE ARPT. KNOWING THAT WE WERE ONLY 5 NM E. I DSNDED TO 4300 FT MSL XING THE E HILLS. THE CTLR SAID 'I WOULDN'T DSND BELOW 4300 FT' WITH NO CALL SIGN FOR US AND NO FACILITY IDENT FOR HIM. I ASKED HIM IF THAT COMMENT WAS FROM HIM, FOR US, ADDING THAT IT WAS DIFFICULT TO PICK OUT THE ARPT 'DUE TO THE HAZE.' HE RETORTED 'ARE YOU SURE IT ISN'T TREES.' I RESPONDED THAT 'NO IT ISN'T BECAUSE OF THE TREES, HOW ABOUT A VECTOR?' HE GAVE US A VECTOR W. APCHING 4100 FT MSL HE SAID 'IS ALT A PROB?' I RESPONDED, 'NO, UNLESS YOU ARE NO LONGER CLRING US FOR A VISUAL APCH.' AT THIS POINT HE CLAIMED NOT TO HAVE CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH. WE SPOTTED THE ARPT AND THEN RECEIVED A HDOF TO EUGENE TWR AND WERE CLRED TO LAND. AFTER LNDG I WALKED OVER TO THE TWR/TRACON FACILITY AND SPOKE TO BOTH THE APCH CTLR AND HIS SUPVR. I MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: WE BELIEVED WE RECEIVED A VISUAL APCH CLRNC FROM 5000 FT MSL. THE APCH CTLR NEVER COMMENTED ON OUR ALTDEV UNTIL 4300 FT MSL (CHANGE OF 700 FT) AND DID SO USING NON-CONFORMING, NON- SOP ATC PHRASEOLOGY. THIS (LACK OF) FORMAT REINFORCED OUR BELIEF THAT WE HAD RECEIVED A VISUAL APCH CLRNC SINCE HE DIDN'T IMMEDIATELY RPT AN ALTDEV TO US (INITIALLY OF 100- 300 FT) AND HIS COMMENT COULD HAVE (AND WAS) TAKEN AS 'ADVISORY ONLY' TO HELP US AVOID TERRAIN ON A VISUAL CLRNC. HIS RESPONSE TO OUR OBSERVATION THAT VISIBILITY WAS LIMITED BECAUSE OF HAZE WAS ALSO WITHOUT CALL SIGNS, ATC IDENT, ETC, AND WAS CLRLY A REMARK THAT WAS SMART- ALECK, NOT CORRECTIVE, AND INFLAMMATORY IN NATURE. HIS QUESTION 'IS ALT A PROB?' AT 4100 FT MSL ALSO WAS NOT CORRECTIVE IN NATURE. HE SHOULD HAVE SAID 'AIRLINE, FLT XXX, CLB IMMEDIATELY TO 5000 FT.' I TOLD HIM WE EXPECTED IMMEDIATE ACTION ON HIS PART TO NOTIFY US OF ANY ALTDEV GREATER THAN 100 FT. AFTER THIS DISCUSSION WE ALL AGREED THAT COM BROKE DOWN, PROCS WERE NOT CORRECTLY FOLLOWED, AND WE ALL RECOGNIZED THAT WE ALL HAD TO DO BETTER. FOR MY CREW'S PART, WE PLEDGED TO BE EVEN MORE VIGILANT ABOUT RECEIVING VISUAL APCH CLRNCS AND THEN CONFIRMING THEM.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.