Narrative:

While being vectored by bay approach for the visual to runway 30L, the crew (myself) picked up the field visually on a high and wide left downwind at about 6000 ft MSL, and approximately 11 mi from the field. We called the field in sight and was thence cleared 'the visual approach runway 30L.' I descended to pattern altitude on a base leg and proceeded in visually. Upon landing at sjc, we were asked to call the tower. After I did and found out that I crossed a mandatory noise abatement altitude 400 ft low, bay approach said I was on the 'fairgrounds visual' which does depict this restr. However, neither myself nor my first officer received or read back this clearance of the 'fairground visual' -- we simply accepted and read back 'cleared for the visual runway 30L. I believe where the error arose was when we were 'cleared' had the crew accepted and read back a titled 'charted visual approach' this deviation would not have occurred. Although no complications came about from this confusion, I think that standard communications between crews and controllers must be kept standard and clear and that no assumptions between either parties takes place.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A HAWKER 100 FLC FAILS TO ABIDE BY THE 6 PT 6 DME ALT XING RESTR OF THE FAIRGROUNDS VISUAL APCH TO RWY 30L AT SJC, CA.

Narrative: WHILE BEING VECTORED BY BAY APCH FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 30L, THE CREW (MYSELF) PICKED UP THE FIELD VISUALLY ON A HIGH AND WIDE L DOWNWIND AT ABOUT 6000 FT MSL, AND APPROX 11 MI FROM THE FIELD. WE CALLED THE FIELD IN SIGHT AND WAS THENCE CLRED 'THE VISUAL APCH RWY 30L.' I DSNDED TO PATTERN ALT ON A BASE LEG AND PROCEEDED IN VISUALLY. UPON LNDG AT SJC, WE WERE ASKED TO CALL THE TWR. AFTER I DID AND FOUND OUT THAT I CROSSED A MANDATORY NOISE ABATEMENT ALT 400 FT LOW, BAY APCH SAID I WAS ON THE 'FAIRGROUNDS VISUAL' WHICH DOES DEPICT THIS RESTR. HOWEVER, NEITHER MYSELF NOR MY FO RECEIVED OR READ BACK THIS CLRNC OF THE 'FAIRGROUND VISUAL' -- WE SIMPLY ACCEPTED AND READ BACK 'CLRED FOR THE VISUAL RWY 30L. I BELIEVE WHERE THE ERROR AROSE WAS WHEN WE WERE 'CLRED' HAD THE CREW ACCEPTED AND READ BACK A TITLED 'CHARTED VISUAL APCH' THIS DEV WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. ALTHOUGH NO COMPLICATIONS CAME ABOUT FROM THIS CONFUSION, I THINK THAT STANDARD COMS BTWN CREWS AND CTLRS MUST BE KEPT STANDARD AND CLR AND THAT NO ASSUMPTIONS BTWN EITHER PARTIES TAKES PLACE.

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.