Tul controller reported observing a VFR target that was on a converging course with a arrival. The c...

Narrative:

I had aircraft X on a right base vector for a visual approach to runway 36R to tul at 2;500 feet. I notice a VFR target that appeared to have departed the rvs controlled airport without services. This aircraft had entered the class C east bound and was on a converging course with aircraft X. I advised aircraft X of the traffic about six miles apart. After seeing the violator appear to be level at 2;500; I advised aircraft X to climb to 3;000; before they ever reached a traffic alert status; and it would have reached that.aircraft X did say he responded to traffic alert; he never said he had an RA. The flm at tul saw this and contacted rvs to see if they knew who the aircraft was. They played dumb. The aircraft departed tul's airspace to the southeast and I passed along the target to ZME. ZME called back later and advised they had talked to the aircraft and it was aircraft Y. He admitted to our flm; that he thought he could climb to 2;500 and be clear of the class C.pilot awareness of where he is and what the rules are would be a good first step. If rvs was still talking to him as he turned and climbed into the class C; an advisory at minimum seems in order.rvs is a busy VFR tower; under the edge of the class C. We have had incidents like this happen from time to time. While finding out who violated the class C; wouldn't have prevented the violation. The inferring with the investigation is wrong and prevents us from working with pilots to make sure they understand what is required and expected. Virtually every time something like this happens; they (rvs) act like they don't who the traffic is. How could they not know who he was? Why do they think it is acceptable to lie to another facility when an inquiry is made? Don't know why they (rvs); think that protecting a pilot is better than fixing a safety issue; and this was a safety issue.the correct things to do; 1) confer with the pilot and make sure he doesn't do this again; 2) approach rvs; pull the data and tapes; and find out what happened on their end. Then explain what is and isn't acceptable. Lies and ignorance aren't acceptable.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TUL Controller reported observing a VFR target that was on a converging course with a arrival. The Controller climbs the arrival to avoid the VFR; now Class C violator. Reporter tracks down the aircraft and finds out who it is and the FLM advises the pilot of the Class C violation.

Narrative: I had Aircraft X on a right base vector for a visual approach to Runway 36R to TUL at 2;500 feet. I notice a VFR target that appeared to have departed the RVS controlled airport without services. This aircraft had entered the Class C east bound and was on a converging course with Aircraft X. I advised Aircraft X of the traffic about six miles apart. After seeing the violator appear to be level at 2;500; I advised Aircraft X to climb to 3;000; before they ever reached a traffic alert status; and it would have reached that.Aircraft X did say he responded to traffic alert; he never said he had an RA. The FLM at TUL saw this and contacted RVS to see if they knew who the aircraft was. They played dumb. The aircraft departed TUL's airspace to the southeast and I passed along the target to ZME. ZME called back later and advised they had talked to the aircraft and it was Aircraft Y. He admitted to our FLM; that he thought he could climb to 2;500 and be clear of the Class C.Pilot awareness of where he is and what the rules are would be a good first step. If RVS was still talking to him as he turned and climbed into the Class C; an advisory at minimum seems in order.RVS is a busy VFR tower; under the edge of the Class C. We have had incidents like this happen from time to time. While finding out who violated the Class C; wouldn't have prevented the violation. The inferring with the investigation is wrong and prevents us from working with pilots to make sure they understand what is required and expected. Virtually every time something like this happens; they (RVS) act like they don't who the traffic is. How could they not know who he was? Why do they think it is acceptable to lie to another facility when an inquiry is made? Don't know why they (RVS); think that protecting a pilot is better than fixing a safety issue; and this was a safety issue.The correct things to do; 1) Confer with the pilot and make sure he doesn't do this again; 2) Approach RVS; pull the data and tapes; and find out what happened on their end. Then explain what is and isn't acceptable. Lies and ignorance aren't acceptable.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.

Attributes
ACN	1331614
Time
Date	201602
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	TUL.Airport
State Reference	OK
Environment
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft Low Wing 1 Eng Fixed Gear
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Climb Cruise
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Function	Local
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 21
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Airspace Violation All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Deviation - Procedural FAR Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Tul controller reported observing a VFR target that was on a converging course with a arrival. The controller climbs the arrival to avoid the VFR; now class C violator. Reporter tracks down the aircraft and finds out who it is and the flm advises the pilot of the class C violation.