CE-560XLS flight crew reported descending below minimum altitude on approach. The flight crew followed ATC instructions and climbed back above minimum altitude and continued the approach to land uneventfully.
Synopsis
CE-560XLS flight crew reported descending below minimum altitude on approach. The flight crew followed ATC instructions and climbed back above minimum altitude and continued the approach to land uneventfully.
Narrative
Descending into ZZZ 9;000 ft. was assigned. Before reaching 9;000 ft. we requested ZZZZZ on the VISUAL Runway XX backed up with RNAV X Runway XX. There was discussion with ATC what type of approach we were requesting. We made it clear we wanted the visual starting at ZZZZZ. We were given direct ZZZZZ for the visual. We dialed in 8;600 ft. to cross ZZZZZ. After flying at 8;600 ft. we were told by ATC he had a low altitude alert climb to 9;000 ft. I initiated a climb. Shortly thereafter we saw the field. Notified ATC and cancelled IFR. Flight landed without incident.As a crew we were focused on a mountain airport and the correct procedures. We reviewed feasibility and all the Company pages enroute. The arrival and approach briefs were thorough. We were ready for the approach in all respects. Our error came in both of us hearing ZZZZZ and VISUAL and believing we were cleared. We thought we were. That is why we agreed 8;600 ft. SET 8;600 ft. SEEN was correct and we went down. We were wanting to be at approach plate altitudes early as well as configured early. I think that is why our collective mindset was hearing cleared for the visual whereas ATC has the tapes that prove we were mistaken. I haven't made this particular mistake since flying cargo a million years ago. I will be more cognizant of setting the altitude alert in the future.
Second reporter narrative
Upon descent into ZZZ we were cleared to 9;000 ft. and direct to ZZZ1; around 11;000 ft. we requested direct to ZZZZZ for the RNAV X XX. The controller questioned if we were still wanting the visual approach explaining that he'd have to reassign us higher which is where the first point of confusion began. We confirmed that we wanted the visual approach but fly the RNAV per company recommendation; terrain avoidance; as well as to gain a better visual sight of the runway as the ZZZ track and our altitude wasn't giving us the best chance to see the runway. Upon getting clearance to ZZZZZ we proceeded down to 8;600 ft. in confusion thinking that we had a visual approach clearance and wanting to get lower and be configure earlier with the steeper approach; high altitude; and tail wind. Upon leveling at 8;600 ft. we gained visual of Runway XX; at the same moment ZZZ Center informed us of the low altitude alert as their bottom IFR altitude was 9;000 ft. We immediately cancelled IFR and proceeded to commence the Company XX visual. The entire time we were in visual conditions and ensured the we were not in any threat from terrain or traffic.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.