Small Aircraft
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 9
Communication Breakdown; Confusion
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
While working SDER I accepted a point out on aircraft Y for a visual approach into MYF.  At the same time I had another aircraft; aircraft X; on the MYF final ILS 28R.  It is standard procedure for SDNR to point out the 28R visual approaches to the SDER sector as the airport is very close to the airspace boundary.  I accepted the point out but did not exchange traffic information to the SDNR controller.  Typically the north controller will look to see what traffic the SDER sector has and ensure appropriate separation is maintained.  However; the responsibility to exchange traffic information with the north sector lies with the east sector.  I assumed that the north controller would be watching.Apply positive control.
Aircraft X was on the ILS 28R.  Aircraft Y was on a Visual Approach from the north with no coordination for IFR sequence.  They were talking to two (2) different controllers.  On initial call; Aircraft Y was ignored due to higher priority duties and was not observed as being IFR due to scanning the runways in busy traffic.  Aircraft Y called again; and I observed his position and that he was IFR and converging on Aircraft X.  By that time; standard IFR separation was already lost; so I restricted Aircraft Y to prevent him descending further until he could see Aircraft X.  In doing this; I also had to resequence several aircraft.  I attempted to contact SCT; but no one responded; a frequent occurrence.Normally; the two sectors involved (North and East) will coordinate if they request visual separation.  There was no coordination in this instance.  Unfortunately; I was not looking at the scope when Aircraft Y called in; or I would have taken action sooner.The control of aircraft making approaches is under two different radar controllers who are supposed to coordinate with each other.  Apparently; North did not look at East's traffic and did not coordinate the approach.  One controller needs to be in charge of all approaches into MYF.
Southern California TRACON (SCT) and MYF Controllers report of a loss of separation between two aircraft; in which the SCT Controller should have issued traffic. An assumption that another SCT controller was watching the reporting Controller's traffic was wrong. The Tower Controller had other priorities and didn't notice the loss until it had occurred.