Narrative:

We were level at 8000 ft MSL on an assigned heading (approximately 210 degrees magnetic) during the approach into sfo. I was flying and the captain was working the radios. The WX was VFR, with high thin clouds and visibility greater than 10 NM. Approach control had previously asked if we could accept the FMS bridge visual runway 28R, to which we replied yes. The controller now tells us to maintain assigned heading to intercept the FMS runway 28R. The captain read back the clearance. Both the captain and I were relatively new to 'high tech' airplanes. (I had approximately 6 months experience and the captain approximately 2 months.) since no specific altitude restrs were given, I interpreted this clearance as allowing us to intercept the FMS runway 28R both laterally and vertically. Our heading put our intercept point right at archi on the approach. A few moments later, he cleared us to 7000 ft and told us to contact the final controller. We then switched over and checked in with the final controller. We leveled off at 7000 ft just prior to archi. With VNAV/LNAV armed and the autoplt engaged, we intercepted the FMS runway 28R approach at archi intersection. The approach shows the archi crossing altitude at or above 7000 ft. After archi, the autoplt flew the LNAV/VNAV track, starting a descent to cross trdow at or above 6000 ft. At approximately 6600 ft the controller asked what our altitude was. The captain replied 6600 ft and descending. The controller said we should be level at 7000 ft. The captain stated that we had been cleared for the FMS runway 28R approach. The controller replied that he was the only one who can issue the approach clearance. He then immediately reclred us to 6000 ft. A few moments later he issued us an approach clearance. We were then handed off to tower and continued the approach and landing without further incident. Points to ponder: 1) both the captain and I thought that the clearance to intercept the FMS runway 28R approach (a visual procedure) with no altitude restrs allowed us to intercept laterally and vertically. Were we incorrect in this thinking? 2) what is the proper ATC phraseology used for an FMS approach when you are not to descend? For an ILS approach, it usually is 'intercept the localizer.' what is the FMS equivalent phrase?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 DSNDING IN OAK, CA, AIRSPACE, ASSUMES DSCNT IS AUTOMATICALLY AUTH WHEN CLRED FOR AN APCH.

Narrative: WE WERE LEVEL AT 8000 FT MSL ON AN ASSIGNED HDG (APPROX 210 DEGS MAGNETIC) DURING THE APCH INTO SFO. I WAS FLYING AND THE CAPT WAS WORKING THE RADIOS. THE WX WAS VFR, WITH HIGH THIN CLOUDS AND VISIBILITY GREATER THAN 10 NM. APCH CTL HAD PREVIOUSLY ASKED IF WE COULD ACCEPT THE FMS BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28R, TO WHICH WE REPLIED YES. THE CTLR NOW TELLS US TO MAINTAIN ASSIGNED HDG TO INTERCEPT THE FMS RWY 28R. THE CAPT READ BACK THE CLRNC. BOTH THE CAPT AND I WERE RELATIVELY NEW TO 'HIGH TECH' AIRPLANES. (I HAD APPROX 6 MONTHS EXPERIENCE AND THE CAPT APPROX 2 MONTHS.) SINCE NO SPECIFIC ALT RESTRS WERE GIVEN, I INTERPED THIS CLRNC AS ALLOWING US TO INTERCEPT THE FMS RWY 28R BOTH LATERALLY AND VERTLY. OUR HDG PUT OUR INTERCEPT POINT RIGHT AT ARCHI ON THE APCH. A FEW MOMENTS LATER, HE CLRED US TO 7000 FT AND TOLD US TO CONTACT THE FINAL CTLR. WE THEN SWITCHED OVER AND CHKED IN WITH THE FINAL CTLR. WE LEVELED OFF AT 7000 FT JUST PRIOR TO ARCHI. WITH VNAV/LNAV ARMED AND THE AUTOPLT ENGAGED, WE INTERCEPTED THE FMS RWY 28R APCH AT ARCHI INTXN. THE APCH SHOWS THE ARCHI XING ALT AT OR ABOVE 7000 FT. AFTER ARCHI, THE AUTOPLT FLEW THE LNAV/VNAV TRACK, STARTING A DSCNT TO CROSS TRDOW AT OR ABOVE 6000 FT. AT APPROX 6600 FT THE CTLR ASKED WHAT OUR ALT WAS. THE CAPT REPLIED 6600 FT AND DSNDING. THE CTLR SAID WE SHOULD BE LEVEL AT 7000 FT. THE CAPT STATED THAT WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR THE FMS RWY 28R APCH. THE CTLR REPLIED THAT HE WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN ISSUE THE APCH CLRNC. HE THEN IMMEDIATELY RECLRED US TO 6000 FT. A FEW MOMENTS LATER HE ISSUED US AN APCH CLRNC. WE WERE THEN HANDED OFF TO TWR AND CONTINUED THE APCH AND LNDG WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. POINTS TO PONDER: 1) BOTH THE CAPT AND I THOUGHT THAT THE CLRNC TO INTERCEPT THE FMS RWY 28R APCH (A VISUAL PROC) WITH NO ALT RESTRS ALLOWED US TO INTERCEPT LATERALLY AND VERTLY. WERE WE INCORRECT IN THIS THINKING? 2) WHAT IS THE PROPER ATC PHRASEOLOGY USED FOR AN FMS APCH WHEN YOU ARE NOT TO DSND? FOR AN ILS APCH, IT USUALLY IS 'INTERCEPT THE LOC.' WHAT IS THE FMS EQUIVALENT PHRASE?

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.