Narrative:

We were approximately 17 mi northeast of cdc on a visual approach. We had cancelled IFR, visibility was good, we were familiar with the airport and had the runway in sight. Cdc unicom informed us that runway 20 was in use, right traffic, also an small transport Y, was in the area making instrument approachs. My co-captain was flying and I figured he would fly to the airport and enter right downwind for runway 20, as usual. The small transport Y then came on unicom and said he was on a 10 mi final for runway 20 on the ILS. My co-captain then remarked that the small transport Y was well ahead of us and that he was going to follow the small transport Y in on the ILS. I concurred since this procedure seemed to provide the least amount of traffic conflict. We were both looking for the small transport Y. I tuned in the ILS and informed unicom we were planning to land #2 behind the small transport Y. We were just intercepting the final course, approximately 7 mi out, when the small transport Y said 'traffic landing at cedar city, you just blew past us!' I asked him if he was talking to the small transport X and he replied affirmative. He asked us if we had seen him and I replied negative. After the split second of terror had cleared, we decided to continue on since we were #1 now. The small transport Y broke off the approach and circled for another one. When we turned off the runway, the small transport Y asked us if we had heard him say he was on a 10 mi final and I replied affirmative but my co-captain said he had heard it was a 2 mi final. I apologized to the small transport Y saying we both had thought that they were well ahead of us. It is extremely unnerving to think you could pass an aircraft on an ILS and never see it. My co-captain and I were probably in a mind set that we knew where the small transport Y should have been. We confined our scan to that area rather than considering other possibilities. Landing preparation also hampered outside scanning. For us to continue intercepting the ILS without having the other aircraft in sight, was quite naive. How we caught the other aircraft so fast is still a mystery. One fact is for sure, our assumption of where that aircraft was or should have been could have been disastrous. As a side note our small transport X along with the small transport Y have excellent forward facing recognition/landing lights, but minimal rear facing lighting as does other aircraft. Spotting an aircraft from the rear can be difficult as evidenced here. We should have stayed with our original plan of going to the airport entering the pattern thus giving us more time to look things over and sort things out.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLOSE PROX CPR SMT AND GA SMT ON LOC TO CDC A NON TWR ARPT.

Narrative: WE WERE APPROX 17 MI NE OF CDC ON A VISUAL APCH. WE HAD CANCELLED IFR, VISIBILITY WAS GOOD, WE WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE ARPT AND HAD THE RWY IN SIGHT. CDC UNICOM INFORMED US THAT RWY 20 WAS IN USE, R TFC, ALSO AN SMT Y, WAS IN THE AREA MAKING INST APCHS. MY CO-CAPT WAS FLYING AND I FIGURED HE WOULD FLY TO THE ARPT AND ENTER R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 20, AS USUAL. THE SMT Y THEN CAME ON UNICOM AND SAID HE WAS ON A 10 MI FINAL FOR RWY 20 ON THE ILS. MY CO-CAPT THEN REMARKED THAT THE SMT Y WAS WELL AHEAD OF US AND THAT HE WAS GOING TO FOLLOW THE SMT Y IN ON THE ILS. I CONCURRED SINCE THIS PROC SEEMED TO PROVIDE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TFC CONFLICT. WE WERE BOTH LOOKING FOR THE SMT Y. I TUNED IN THE ILS AND INFORMED UNICOM WE WERE PLANNING TO LAND #2 BEHIND THE SMT Y. WE WERE JUST INTERCEPTING THE FINAL COURSE, APPROX 7 MI OUT, WHEN THE SMT Y SAID 'TFC LNDG AT CEDAR CITY, YOU JUST BLEW PAST US!' I ASKED HIM IF HE WAS TALKING TO THE SMT X AND HE REPLIED AFFIRMATIVE. HE ASKED US IF WE HAD SEEN HIM AND I REPLIED NEGATIVE. AFTER THE SPLIT SECOND OF TERROR HAD CLRED, WE DECIDED TO CONTINUE ON SINCE WE WERE #1 NOW. THE SMT Y BROKE OFF THE APCH AND CIRCLED FOR ANOTHER ONE. WHEN WE TURNED OFF THE RWY, THE SMT Y ASKED US IF WE HAD HEARD HIM SAY HE WAS ON A 10 MI FINAL AND I REPLIED AFFIRMATIVE BUT MY CO-CAPT SAID HE HAD HEARD IT WAS A 2 MI FINAL. I APOLOGIZED TO THE SMT Y SAYING WE BOTH HAD THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE WELL AHEAD OF US. IT IS EXTREMELY UNNERVING TO THINK YOU COULD PASS AN ACFT ON AN ILS AND NEVER SEE IT. MY CO-CAPT AND I WERE PROBABLY IN A MIND SET THAT WE KNEW WHERE THE SMT Y SHOULD HAVE BEEN. WE CONFINED OUR SCAN TO THAT AREA RATHER THAN CONSIDERING OTHER POSSIBILITIES. LNDG PREPARATION ALSO HAMPERED OUTSIDE SCANNING. FOR US TO CONTINUE INTERCEPTING THE ILS WITHOUT HAVING THE OTHER ACFT IN SIGHT, WAS QUITE NAIVE. HOW WE CAUGHT THE OTHER ACFT SO FAST IS STILL A MYSTERY. ONE FACT IS FOR SURE, OUR ASSUMPTION OF WHERE THAT ACFT WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN COULD HAVE BEEN DISASTROUS. AS A SIDE NOTE OUR SMT X ALONG WITH THE SMT Y HAVE EXCELLENT FORWARD FACING RECOGNITION/LNDG LIGHTS, BUT MINIMAL REAR FACING LIGHTING AS DOES OTHER ACFT. SPOTTING AN ACFT FROM THE REAR CAN BE DIFFICULT AS EVIDENCED HERE. WE SHOULD HAVE STAYED WITH OUR ORIGINAL PLAN OF GOING TO THE ARPT ENTERING THE PATTERN THUS GIVING US MORE TIME TO LOOK THINGS OVER AND SORT THINGS OUT.

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