The regulations on this seems sparse. Apart from a minimum of 800 m flight visibility (yes!) I do not find any requirements for a visual approach.
On a couple of occasions I have been reminded that ATC expects aircraft to fly a reasonably straight line with a heading that will take them where they are cleared to. That goes for both VFR and IFR/visual. If told to report on final, that means heading straight for base turn or final turn, whichever is closest.
Obviously, what ATC expects does matter.
LeSving, the old Hamar IAP from 1997 is still on the airfield homepage: http://www.hamarlufthavn.no/ial-og-aip.html
Although decommissioned, apparently you can still fly it.
I have not thought about those 800 m for a long time, but I now remember a story, told many years ago by a now senior (and grown-up!) flight instructor. He was approaching a small airport IFR/IMC with a NDB-only approach. The ceiling was clearly below minimums, but a couple of miles from the airport the pilot found a hole in the cloud deck, was cleared for a visual approach, dived down to about tree top height and followed a road to the runway and landed.
Although not in line with all the CDFA talk that the CAA likes these days, I cannot find a rule that deems the procedure illegal. But it certainly sounded risky.
To me a visual approach is just for making everything faster, smoother and easier on CAVOK-like days, when approaching from the other side of the ILS.
Yes, that’s the VFR routes chart. You should follow the routes, but you can get clearence to do other things. But take a look at this VAC at Kristiansund:
https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/current/aip/ad/enkb/EN_AD_2_ENKB_6-1_en.pdf
Then the VAC at ENVA:
https://www.ippc.no/norway_aip/current/aip/ad/enva/EN_AD_2_ENVA_6-1_en.pdf
What I mean is simply that there are no “default” VFR approach in controlled air space. Likewise there seems not to be any default visual approach procedure.
What exactly is a VFR arrival procedure in controlled airspace? There is no single “standard” procedure, you can do whatever you get a clearance to do, and it varies between airports and weather, traffic etc. The only place you have something that can be called a “standard” VFR arrival procedure, is at unattended airports (no radio, no nothing), places where IFR is out of the question.
Look at this chart: http://www.lfv.se/AIP/AD/AD%202/ESSB/ES_AD_2_ESSB_6-4_en.pdf
If runway 30 is in use, and you are arriving VFR from the west, you are expected to present yourself at ÄLVNÄS. There you will typically get a clearance to BJÖRNHOLMEN and you are expected to follow the charted route via KUNGSHATT rather than direct, without being told. Once at BJÖRNHOLMEN you will be expected to hold until you get an approach clearance.
If departing VFR to the east, you will get a departure clearance to EDSVIKEN. Again, you are expected to follow the charted route without being told – not fly direct.
Besides, 800 m visibility sounds very helicopter to me, in VMC.
I did say that 800 m was less than VMC — that is the reason I’m surprised that visual approaches (IFR!) are permitted down to 800 m visibility. I guess it is possible to pull one off if the low visibility is because of low and thin fog layer which doesn’t much impact visibility at high viewing angles to the ground.
Even ENHA once used to have an NDB approach available even outside of ATS hours
Didn’t know that. I don’t know exactly what the rules about IFR approaches and airports are here in Norway. I only assumed the regulations at Avinor airports (in G airspace) was according to regulations, but it may very well only be Avinor practice for all I know.
unattended airports (no radio, no nothing), places where IFR is out of the question.
Even ENHA once used to have an NDB approach available even outside of ATS hours 
… In France there are many IFR approaches available outside of ATS hours, possibly even at airfields w/o ATS. With RNAV (GNSS) approaches we may see more of that. In the US too there are numerous airfields, even with no ATS at all, with IFR approaches.
In France though, if no ATS you are supposed to comply with the VFR traffic pattern at the conclusion of your approach. Straight-in is not according to the book.
Visual approaches are most certainly not expected to use VFR arrival procedures! As several people have pointed out, a visual approach is flown under IFR. (You can actually fly a visual approach with lower than VMC flight visibility — down to 800 m, but how you do that in practise, I’ve not be able to figure out…)
What exactly is a VFR arrival procedure in controlled airspace? There is no single “standard” procedure, you can do whatever you get a clearance to do, and it varies between airports and weather, traffic etc. The only place you have something that can be called a “standard” VFR arrival procedure, is at unattended airports (no radio, no nothing), places where IFR is out of the question. And it’s not even a “standard”, more like a customary thing when no other information is available. Besides, 800 m visibility sounds very helicopter to me, in VMC.
I was actually asked after getting airborne but I know what you say. Having flown out of Egelsbach I understand that VMC in Germany is “flexible”.
I have accepted a visual departure out of Köln which was offered by ATC and avoided me having to fly the full SID.
When you get asked that in Germany, the real question is “do you want to depart or prefer to burn your fuel at the holding point?”. So always answer yes. It is also very common to take a creative interpretation of VMC during such manoeuvers (the dreaded MRVA).
Visual approaches are most certainly not expected to use VFR arrival procedures! As several people have pointed out, a visual approach is flown under IFR. (You can actually fly a visual approach with lower than VMC flight visibility — down to 800 m, but how you do that in practise, I’ve not be able to figure out…)
Visual arrival routes in control zones are usually designed to be procedurally separated from IFR traffic, so it would not be a good idea to try to follow them under IFR.
There are cases where specific visual approach procedures are published, but it is unusual.
I am the opposite of an expert on European IFR, but I was told “expect visual approach” just this week at EKRN. Maybe the controller just did that to make me feel more at home 
A visual approach would be my default expectation in the US, weather permitting.
The one time I’ve used a contact approach in the US was when there was a shallow deck of cloud with bases 300 ft above an airport where the lowest MDH is 600 ft. On the first approach to the airport (on an IAP, ending in a missed approach), it became clear that if we approached the airport from a different direction, we’d be able to slide in under the layer. It helped that the direction we would have to approach from was aligned with the runway (whereas the approach courses on the IAPs are at a large angle) and that the layer stopped pretty much right at the airport fence. Since we had to maneuver a ways from the missed approach holding point before we’d be able to see the airport, a visual approach wouldn’t have worked, but, as NCYankee said, that was fine for a contact approach.
