Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: APC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D APC
ATC / advisory: Tower APC
Second aircraft: DA42 Twin Star
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on final for Runway 18R and Aircraft Y in the left downwind for Runway 18L. Both were cleared for their respective runways and given traffic advisories about each other. Aircraft Z checked in on the ILS 36L practice approach 3.5 miles south of the field - a half mile inside the APC Class D airspace and well within the opposite direction cut off point. Aircraft Z was instructed to break off his approach and exit the Class D by the Local Controller due to opposite direction traffic. Aircraft Z didn't respond and continued to track the ILS inbound. Aircraft X landed and taxied off Runway 18R and held short of [Runway] 18L for Aircraft Y. Aircraft Z broke off his approach two miles south of the field after the Local Controller addressed him again as Aircraft Y was turning base for [Runway] 18L. Aircraft Z was issued a Brasher Warning and exited the Class D to the east. Aircraft Z mentioned he had been talking to ZOA shortly before contacting us and said he 'just gotten the handoff' when he was talking to Local for the Brasher Warning. Letting aircraft know that talking to one ATC facility doesn't mean you have permission to enter another facility's airspace without contacting them; [and] also reducing the opposite direction cut-off-point mileage. APC airspace extends only 4.2 miles south of the field but our cut-off-point for VFR to VFR aircraft is 7 miles - well outside of our airspace and the point where aircraft are required to talk to us.


Second narrative: I was working the Local position. The active runways were RWY 18R & 18L. Aircraft X was in right traffic for RWY 18R and Aircraft Y was in left traffic for RWY 18L. I had cleared both aircraft to land on their assigned runways; then Aircraft Z checked in on the ILS RWY 36L Approach. I turned around and saw that the aircraft [Aircraft Z] was inside the class Delta and was descending for RWY 36L. I instructed Aircraft Z to break off the approach for opposite direction traffic and exit the Delta. The pilot responded and I returned my attention back to the two aircraft in the pattern; as I needed to ensure that Aircraft X gear was down and both aircraft's current positions. I then turned my attention back to Aircraft Z and observed that the aircraft was still on the approach. I called out to Aircraft Z again and the instructor answered and stated that they were on the ILS RWY 36L Approach. I again instructed Aircraft Z to break off the approach for opposite direction traffic with more emphasis; as the separation was decreasing rapidly. I issued a 'Brasher Warning' and issued the Tower's telephone number with instructions to call the Tower upon landing. I called my ATM [Supervisor] to inform her of the situation and she said she was going to listen to the tapes and then come upstairs to fill out an MOR [Mandatory Occurrence Report]; as I was still on position. The instructor of Aircraft Z called later and was belligerent with the Controller in Charge as he was trying to get his information. The instructor was demanding the Controller in Charge's full name as well as mine. The instructor would not give his name to the Controller in Charge and only gave his tail number. The Controller in Charge transferred the call to my ATM. I was relieved off position as it was the end of my shift and I went downstairs to my ATM's office. She was finishing the conversation with the instructor. My ATM told me that the instructor was also belligerent with her and that he also demanded my name and also was being difficult about giving her his name. She said it took a lot of effort to calm him down and explain the situation to him and get the needed information. She said that he stated that it was not his fault for the violation; as he was cleared on the approach by Oakland Center and that the controller did a late comm change with him. These kind of violations are becoming more common and so is the attitude from pilots/instructors. There is a sense of entitlement and a lack of respect for rules and regulations. The quality of pilots who become instructors has declined over the years and it is becoming a serious problem; as their students become instructors and the downward cycle continues. There needs to be some sort of regulatory action taken that would impose a stricter standard on instructors and those who want to become one. This would ensure that future pilots will receive quality training from quality instructors and thus improve the NAS [National Airspace System].


Synopsis: Tower controllers reported aircraft on approach from TRACON violated procedures and Local airspace.