Narrative:

We were cleared for the visual at sna 19R. As we turned final coast approach called an small aircraft as traffic at 1-2 O'clock, 5 mi, 'has you in sight'. We did not see the small aircraft. When we changed to sna tower the tower again called the small aircraft as traffic. They reported him at 1 O'clock, less than a mi, level 1900', 'has you in sight'. Shortly after that my first officer and I spotted the small aircraft. At that time he was about 2-300' below us and 1/2 mi at our 1-2 O'clock position. He was on a collision course. I (PF) increased my rate of descent from 1000 FPM to 1500 FPM and turned about 10-15 degree to the right. We passed to the right and behind the small aircraft. At closest approach the small aircraft was zero vertical, and 1/8 mi horizontal. Close enough to read the north number (if it had been the 12' ones, and I wanted to look long enough). Throughout the small aircraft never wavered from its straight and level course. Our heading was 190 degree. The small aircraft course was approximately 060 degree. I cannot reconcile the small aircraft inaction with his having us in sight at the time of the conflict. Contributing to the incident was: 1) sna tower allowing two aircraft under their control to get that close together when one crew did not see the other aircraft. 2) the small aircraft pilot's failure to either a) report losing sight of us or B) keep track of his traffic. The small aircraft was on a 'traffic watch' flight. 3) my relaxing my vigilance when our traffic was reported as 'has you in sight', when we were first informed of the small aircraft. I remember consciously relaxing when we were told 'has you in sight', telling myself, 'good, I don't have to worry about that one'.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLOSE PROX BETWEEN ACR AND SMA. SMA TRAFFIC WATCH ACFT AND ACR ON VISUAL APCH.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL AT SNA 19R. AS WE TURNED FINAL COAST APCH CALLED AN SMA AS TFC AT 1-2 O'CLOCK, 5 MI, 'HAS YOU IN SIGHT'. WE DID NOT SEE THE SMA. WHEN WE CHANGED TO SNA TWR THE TWR AGAIN CALLED THE SMA AS TFC. THEY REPORTED HIM AT 1 O'CLOCK, LESS THAN A MI, LEVEL 1900', 'HAS YOU IN SIGHT'. SHORTLY AFTER THAT MY F/O AND I SPOTTED THE SMA. AT THAT TIME HE WAS ABOUT 2-300' BELOW US AND 1/2 MI AT OUR 1-2 O'CLOCK POSITION. HE WAS ON A COLLISION COURSE. I (PF) INCREASED MY RATE OF DSCNT FROM 1000 FPM TO 1500 FPM AND TURNED ABOUT 10-15 DEG TO THE RIGHT. WE PASSED TO THE RIGHT AND BEHIND THE SMA. AT CLOSEST APCH THE SMA WAS ZERO VERTICAL, AND 1/8 MI HORIZONTAL. CLOSE ENOUGH TO READ THE N NUMBER (IF IT HAD BEEN THE 12' ONES, AND I WANTED TO LOOK LONG ENOUGH). THROUGHOUT THE SMA NEVER WAVERED FROM ITS STRAIGHT AND LEVEL COURSE. OUR HDG WAS 190 DEG. THE SMA COURSE WAS APPROX 060 DEG. I CANNOT RECONCILE THE SMA INACTION WITH HIS HAVING US IN SIGHT AT THE TIME OF THE CONFLICT. CONTRIBUTING TO THE INCIDENT WAS: 1) SNA TWR ALLOWING TWO ACFT UNDER THEIR CTL TO GET THAT CLOSE TOGETHER WHEN ONE CREW DID NOT SEE THE OTHER ACFT. 2) THE SMA PLT'S FAILURE TO EITHER A) REPORT LOSING SIGHT OF US OR B) KEEP TRACK OF HIS TFC. THE SMA WAS ON A 'TFC WATCH' FLT. 3) MY RELAXING MY VIGILANCE WHEN OUR TFC WAS REPORTED AS 'HAS YOU IN SIGHT', WHEN WE WERE FIRST INFORMED OF THE SMA. I REMEMBER CONSCIOUSLY RELAXING WHEN WE WERE TOLD 'HAS YOU IN SIGHT', TELLING MYSELF, 'GOOD, I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT ONE'.

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.