Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 8.5
Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Human Factors; Procedure
I was working approach. Aircraft X had been holding at the TUL VOR and on his outbound leg said he was ready for the approach.  I had IFR traffic inbound to H71 wanting the VOR26 circle RWY 18L approach there who would be in conflict with Aircraft X's approach later and decided it was a good time to clear him for his approach.  Aircraft Y was about 10 NW of TUL inbound for the VFR overhead to Rwy18L.  Aircraft Y reported the field in sight and I cleared him to enter initial which at this time according to our LOA he becomes a VFR flight and shipped Aircraft Y to the tower.  Aircraft Z was on a right down wind 5 miles west of the airport at 5000 feet.  I started a relief briefing and Aircraft Z reported the airport in sight.  I cleared Aircraft Z for a visual approach to RWY 18R during the briefing.  After I was relieved and monitoring the position; we observed that the tower controller issued a right break over the numbers to Aircraft Y; left break is standard for the VFR overhead maneuver;  putting the aircraft in conflict with Aircraft Z who was now on a right base to RWY 18R.  The local controller waited until Aircraft Z was turning 3 mile final for RWY 18R before calling the RW controller to inform him Aircraft Z was still on approach frequency.  I observed the Aircraft Y flight over fly Aircraft Z on their approach to RWY 18L.There would not have been an incident if the local controller had not issued a right break to Aircraft Y flight.  The local controller had several options in this situation.  The first and standard option in this situation is the controller could have extended the break of Aircraft Y either at the departure end of RWY 18L or even 1 to 2 miles beyond the departure end and then if necessary extended the downwind of Aircraft Y to follow Aircraft X who was circling from the VOR approach to RWY 18L.  The local controller could have had Aircraft Y flight re-enter initial at 2500 feet; and there would have been no conflict with any aircraft.  The local controller could have sent Aircraft Y flight back to approach.  The local controller should have called approach sooner to get communication with Aircraft Z once he realized the aircraft was not on his frequency.  Supervisor was working the local control position.  Supervisor is not as proficient as controllers in working flights in the overhead and created an unsafe situation.  Supervisors should only work traffic during periods of light traffic.
TUL Approach Controller reports of a conflict involving three aircraft that were not correctly worked by the Tower Controller.