Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TUL.Airport, OK
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C TUL
ATC / advisory: Tower TUL
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

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.




Synopsis: 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.