EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Total 4703
Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue 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 Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Airport; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
While at altitude south of GJT; Aircraft X was cleared direct to CESBA to maintain 12;000 ft. cleared for the Visual Approach. I was Pilot Flying. We started the descent after CESBA and shortly after were called by ATC notifying us of a possible low altitude alert. I immediately stopped my descent and started a climb. The Captain responded to the ATC call and confirmed that we were cleared for the Visual Approach. The Captain and I confirmed that we were past the fix and cleared for the Visual Approach so I again initiated the descent. Because we were now higher than I wanted to be for my location on the approach; I called for the gear down early to aid in the descent. Once turning on final; I configured the aircraft and was stable and on speed by 1;000 ft. The rest of the approach and landing was uneventful. Once on the ground I called ATC and cancelled our IFR flight plan with them.During the flight the Captain had mentioned to me that there was a tendency for ATC to leave us high and dump us for a northwest approach into GJT. Because of our discussion and talking about contingencies; I believe that I was more prepared for the possibility of this happening. I feel that we had very good situational awareness; and it was evident that ATC was possibly a little slow in allowing us to descend. I do not believe that we descended below 12;000 ft. before CESBA. Because of the discussion during the flight about the tendency of being left at a high altitude; I feel that we had very good situational awareness. I am very appreciative of the Captain for mentioning this and we had talked about contingencies including a go around if we were not stable and on speed and configured by 1;000 ft. There may have been confusion between ATC and us with being cleared for the Visual Approach versus the RNAV Runway 29; but either way; we had not yet descended to 8;500 ft. which would've been the lowest altitude from CESBA to HANSU on the RNAV Runway 29 Approach. In retrospect; maybe we could've made another call back to ATC to confirm our understood clearance.
The Crew prepared and briefed ahead of time prior to top of descent for the Visual Approach backed up by the RNAV Runway 29 to include that the area has the tendency to keep airplanes high and dumped in the approach. In the vicinity of CESBA fix; clearance was maintain 12;000 ft.; and we were cleared for the approach. Crew started descent to altitude published at CESBA. From 12;000 ft. down to 8;500 ft. Altitude alert was issued by controller afterwards. Crew was instructed to climb back up which was complied with. Confusion in the cockpit started to build. We thought we were cleared for the approach and allowed to descend on the published altitude on the chart which we were high to begin with. After keeping us high; crew queried if still cleared for the approach; the reply was yes. The Captain felt the automation would delay further the descent on a high approach and advised the First Officer to hand fly the descent as the runway was in sight at that point. Flight landed safely without any further incident. Pay more attention when a complex clearance is issued.
Flight crew reported ATC advised them of a possible low altitude alert even though they complied with the assigned crossing restriction in their Visual Approach clearance.