Narrative:

Descending into ilm. Expecting a visual approach to 24. We briefed the visual approach backed up by the ILS. Enroute; ATC kept us high and we required a steep descent to the airport. ATC recognized the need for an additional vector to give us more time to descend and turned us south. ATC instructed us to heading 280 and 1600 feet. This vector brought us inside the final approach fix sumly. This faced us into the sun and the haze made it harder to find the airport. They asked us if we had the airport and at the time we did not. As we approached the final; I started turning final and descending. ATC issued a low altitude alert and asked if we had the airport in sight. We reported that we did and he commented that we were assigned 1600 and hadn't been cleared for the visual approach. He issued the clearance for the visual and told us to contact tower.ATC communicated the altitude deviation to us. I was preoccupied with the descent into ilm and concerned about being high on final. I was also distracted by the poor vectors inside the FAF and hazy conditions. When ATC gave us the low altitude alert; I immediately added power and started climbing to 1600 feet; until he issued the clearance for the visual approach. This put us in a position high and fast for the approach. At 1000 feet I called not stable; go around and we started the go around procedure. We went around the pattern and the second landing was uneventful.in the future I will ask for better vectors and use the ILS unless we receive a visual clearance further from the airport that allows for proper planning of the approach. Additionally; on days with impaired visibility such as haze or a setting sun; visual approaches aren't the most appropriate approach even though conditions are VMC.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB-145LR First Officer reported a low altitude alert from ATC due to a premature descent while turning final for ILM.

Narrative: Descending into ILM. Expecting a Visual approach to 24. We briefed the visual approach backed up by the ILS. Enroute; ATC kept us high and we required a steep descent to the airport. ATC recognized the need for an additional vector to give us more time to descend and turned us south. ATC instructed us to heading 280 and 1600 feet. This vector brought us inside the final approach fix SUMLY. This faced us into the sun and the haze made it harder to find the airport. They asked us if we had the airport and at the time we did not. As we approached the final; I started turning final and descending. ATC issued a low altitude alert and asked if we had the airport in sight. We reported that we did and he commented that we were assigned 1600 and hadn't been cleared for the visual approach. He issued the clearance for the visual and told us to contact tower.ATC communicated the altitude deviation to us. I was preoccupied with the descent into ILM and concerned about being high on final. I was also distracted by the poor vectors inside the FAF and hazy conditions. When ATC gave us the low altitude alert; I immediately added power and started climbing to 1600 feet; until he issued the clearance for the visual approach. This put us in a position high and fast for the approach. At 1000 feet I called not stable; go around and we started the go around procedure. We went around the pattern and the second landing was uneventful.In the future I will ask for better vectors and use the ILS unless we receive a visual clearance further from the airport that allows for proper planning of the approach. Additionally; on days with impaired visibility such as haze or a setting sun; visual approaches aren't the most appropriate approach even though conditions are VMC.

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.