B737-700
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 222; Flight Crew Type 500
Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Human Factors; Procedure
While leaving ARCHI on the BRIDGE Visual to 28R in SFO; the Controller asked us if we had the runway in sight. We replied that we did. The Pilot Flying misunderstood to mean that we were cleared a normal visual. He then deleted the point TRDOW to cut the corner between ARCHI and GAROW. He also was flying in Vertical Speed mode and set the 4000 FT restriction at GAROW.  I was busy changing radio frequencies. When he announced what he was doing; I looked up in time to see that he had deleted the point and was descending below 6;000 FT. The Controller at this time told us to level off (5500 FT) and meet the restrictions and fly the charted course on the BRIDGE Visual. We complied.The Pilot Flying did not seem to understand the difference between flying the charted Visual Approach and a normal approach. He also was not flying in VNAV.
Cleared to fly the MODESTO 5 Arrival into SFO. Approaching SFO; the ATIS informed us of Visual Approaches to Runway 28. We briefed the QUIET BRIDGE Visual RWY 28R. On initial contact with NorCal; we were told to expect a Visual Approach to Runway 28; but could not understand the Controller as to what visual approach it was. We were trying to confirm the approach but the radio traffic was very heavy. After hearing the Controller give several other aircraft expect the FMS Visual to 28 we concluded this was our going to be our clearance. I had never flown this approach and it was difficult to find it in the iPad. We found it and briefed it with plenty of time however. Weather was good and we had the airport area at about 30 miles.We were handed off to another Controller and cleared for the FMS Visual Runway 28R and told to maintain 230 knots. This was approaching ARCHI. At this point I looked down and saw the FMS was commanding a 199 knot speed and flaps. I am not comfortable with SPD INTV and feel training and guidance in written material is inadequate. During initial training in RNAV; I remember hearing SPD INTV shouldn't be used unless you are very comfortable with it. My FO told me after the event; he had been given the same information during his training. He has been at Company for a short time.I decided to set altitudes manually and use VSI (Vertical Speed Indicator) to control my speed at 230 knots. Approaching TRDOW and inside ARCHI; the Controller asked if we had the runway in sight. We replied in the affirmative and he cleared us for a visual to Runway 28R. I am not sure if the clearance was the FMS Visual or a visual but it was confusing to me as we already had a clearance for the FMS Visual Runway 28. My thinking was the Controller wanted us to keep our speed up as long as possible to gain the proper interval for aircraft behind us. At this point; I selected direct GAROW and 4000 FT on the MCP. I am not sure if I verbalized this to the FO. The FO was selecting the Tower frequency when this happened and radio traffic was heavy. Passing 5500 FT; we were told to level off by the Controller and our approach clearance was cancelled. Controller said we were below the prescribed altitude at TRDOW of 6000 FT. There was no mention of terrain clearance problems or conflict with another aircraft. We were given clearance to resume the visual by Approach and subsequently cleared to land by Tower. Landing was uneventful.I feel training and guidance for FMS Visual Approaches is inadequate. I have never received any formal training in these types of approaches. My technique is to fly these as an RNAV Approach. In the FOM these approaches are called Charted Visual Approaches or RNAV Visual Flight Procedures (RVFP) or just RNAV Visuals. In SFO they are called FMS Visuals. The APP page in the FMC might give these approaches yet another name. The FMS visual in SFO has a WEATHER MINIMUM of 2100 and five; but the FOM requires 'flight visibility and distance from clouds must be maintained at all times throughout the RVFP.' Why have weather minimums for an approach if you can't fly through a cloud on the approach? The FOM further states 'ATC may give Flight Deck Crews multiple speed assignments when flying the RVFP (newer models). If using the autothrottle; the use of speed intervention (SPD INTV) may be the only way to maintain path and comply with directed speeds. SPD INTV is inoperative in the (older model) aircraft.' To me this is a recipe for a violation considering the level of training we have in SPD INTV. Another paragraph in the FOM is confusing. 'RVFPs shall be flown in LNAV and VNAV for aircraft authorized to use VNAV. For aircraft not authorized to use VNAV; the RVFP is flown in LNAV and either VERT SPEED or LVL CHANGE.' But the FOM also states; 'Because RVFPs are visual operations; all Company 737s are equipped and authorized to fly RVFPs in LNAV. VNAV may be used in all Company aircraft.' It seems the Charted Visual Approaches are geared for the convenience of ATC. When given speed restrictions and varying weather conditions; along with flying either the older or newer model aircraft with different autopilot systems; it puts a heavy workload to what should be a relatively simple procedure.
B737-700 flight crew reports being cleared for the FMS Visual Runway 28R at SFO. Later; a second clearance for the visual approach is received and the captain misunderstands it to mean a standard visual. A waypoint is deleted and descent is initiated while the First Officer is occupied; which is quickly detected by NCT.