Narrative:

At approximately 15 mi center cleared us visibility to the airport #2 behind previously reported traffic. ATC's transmission is acknowledged with a 'no joy on traffic.' subsequently switched to tower and reported our position. We were informed we were #2 to the field and to report 5 mi following corp jet Y. That aircraft then reported 11 DME. Our present position at this point was 9.5. With some head turning we visually picked up the small jet paralleling us at 9 O'clock, 2 mi. There was no immediate mid air threat nor evasive action required. A 360 degree turn was executed for spacing. I am not convinced center had radar contact with the other aircraft (radar coverage is limited to 2500' and above in this area) or that the other aircraft knew or communicated his position correctly. Communications between this aircraft, center and the tower indicate some confusion. Lessons learned: never accept a visibility to an airport until you have your own visibility assurance that there is not a potential traffic conflict. Demand that ATC provide precise location of other aircraft to achieve tally. Be low and look all around. Conclusion: we were lucky. This was not an incident, but it was moving in that direction fast. Kudos to the tower. Radar coverage and possibly an approach control are needed at this airport. Supplemental information from acn 101929: we called the 'filed in sight' and were given visibility approach clearance for runway 17 behind corp jet Y on a '6 mi final for 17' from ZHN. Previously corp Y had called 'field in sight,' and was also on visibility. Kona tower rogered and asked us to 'report 5 localizer DME for 17,' and advised that we are following a corp jet on a '5 mi final to 17.' a moment later corp Y advised kona tower that he was '11 localizer DME north of the field.' I immediately checked our DME and noted that we were 9.5 localizer DME northwest of the field. We did not have a near miss. Our closest sep was perhaps 1/2 mi horizontal and 1000' vertical. Both center (radar) and kona tower advised us that the traffic was 9-10 mi ahead of us on a final approach rather than slightly north of our position. My assessment of the situation is that ZHN (radar approach) and kona tower never really knew the accurate position of corp Y.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION BETWEEN ACR AND CORP JET. BOTH CLEARED FOR VISUAL APCH. PLT DEVIATION AND OPERATIONAL ERROR.

Narrative: AT APPROX 15 MI CENTER CLRED US VIS TO THE ARPT #2 BEHIND PREVIOUSLY RPTED TFC. ATC'S XMISSION IS ACKNOWLEDGED WITH A 'NO JOY ON TFC.' SUBSEQUENTLY SWITCHED TO TWR AND RPTED OUR POS. WE WERE INFORMED WE WERE #2 TO THE FIELD AND TO RPT 5 MI FOLLOWING CORP JET Y. THAT ACFT THEN RPTED 11 DME. OUR PRESENT POS AT THIS POINT WAS 9.5. WITH SOME HEAD TURNING WE VISUALLY PICKED UP THE SMALL JET PARALLELING US AT 9 O'CLOCK, 2 MI. THERE WAS NO IMMEDIATE MID AIR THREAT NOR EVASIVE ACTION REQUIRED. A 360 DEG TURN WAS EXECUTED FOR SPACING. I AM NOT CONVINCED CENTER HAD RADAR CONTACT WITH THE OTHER ACFT (RADAR COVERAGE IS LIMITED TO 2500' AND ABOVE IN THIS AREA) OR THAT THE OTHER ACFT KNEW OR COMMUNICATED HIS POS CORRECTLY. COMS BTWN THIS ACFT, CENTER AND THE TWR INDICATE SOME CONFUSION. LESSONS LEARNED: NEVER ACCEPT A VIS TO AN ARPT UNTIL YOU HAVE YOUR OWN VIS ASSURANCE THAT THERE IS NOT A POTENTIAL TFC CONFLICT. DEMAND THAT ATC PROVIDE PRECISE LOCATION OF OTHER ACFT TO ACHIEVE TALLY. BE LOW AND LOOK ALL AROUND. CONCLUSION: WE WERE LUCKY. THIS WAS NOT AN INCIDENT, BUT IT WAS MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION FAST. KUDOS TO THE TWR. RADAR COVERAGE AND POSSIBLY AN APCH CTL ARE NEEDED AT THIS ARPT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 101929: WE CALLED THE 'FILED IN SIGHT' AND WERE GIVEN VIS APCH CLRNC FOR RWY 17 BEHIND CORP JET Y ON A '6 MI FINAL FOR 17' FROM ZHN. PREVIOUSLY CORP Y HAD CALLED 'FIELD IN SIGHT,' AND WAS ALSO ON VIS. KONA TWR ROGERED AND ASKED US TO 'RPT 5 LOC DME FOR 17,' AND ADVISED THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING A CORP JET ON A '5 MI FINAL TO 17.' A MOMENT LATER CORP Y ADVISED KONA TWR THAT HE WAS '11 LOC DME N OF THE FIELD.' I IMMEDIATELY CHKED OUR DME AND NOTED THAT WE WERE 9.5 LOC DME NW OF THE FIELD. WE DID NOT HAVE A NEAR MISS. OUR CLOSEST SEP WAS PERHAPS 1/2 MI HORIZ AND 1000' VERT. BOTH CENTER (RADAR) AND KONA TWR ADVISED US THAT THE TFC WAS 9-10 MI AHEAD OF US ON A FINAL APCH RATHER THAN SLIGHTLY N OF OUR POS. MY ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION IS THAT ZHN (RADAR APCH) AND KONA TWR NEVER REALLY KNEW THE ACCURATE POS OF CORP Y.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.