Narrative:

An airport vehicle closed a third of the only active paved runway in the middle of the day during peak traffic for absolutely no reason resulting in a compounding safety issue. I am late filing this report because I thought another controller had already filed and I was busy with other matters.runway 8 in use. Wind favoring runway 8 by about 8 knots. Traffic was increasing. FAA maintenance requested permission to enter the runway 26 safety area to replace a threshold light. I asked FAA if they are able to remain clear of the runway surface for the operation. FAA confirmed that they only need the safety area; not the runway. I put FAA in the safety area and clear of the runway at all times. I issued traffic information on FAA to my runway 8 arrivals and departures since FAA is just off the departure end of runway 8.FAA completed their operation and exited the safety area. A few minutes later FAA asked tower permission to enter the safety area for runway 8 this time; again to replace a runway threshold light. I asked FAA if they are able to remain clear of the runway surface for the operation. FAA confirmed that they only needed the safety area; not the runway. Understanding this; I elected to hold FAA short of the runway for a few moments as to not introduce a new hazard to the runway safety area (rsa) while traffic is on short final for runway 8; as it didn't give enough time for the pilot to object.[airport ops worker] tells the tower that they are going to close the runway west of charlie intersection after the traffic lands. I informed [airport ops worker] that I need the runway for other ongoing operations; and also inform him that the FAA vehicle does not need a runway closure. [Airport ops worker] insisted that they are closing the runway anyway. I have a back in forth with [airport ops worker] about the arriving and departing traffic in the queue that require full runway. I ask if [airport ops worker] would like to just come back in the evening instead of during peak traffic. [Airport ops worker] declines; and insists that he will close the runway after the traffic land/depart.the runway is shown closed west of taxiway charlie. [Airport ops worker] proceeds on the closed portion from bravo. FAA is not put on the runway and is instructed to proceed in the rsa and to remain clear of the runway at all times. Aircraft X calls tower on a straight in for runway 8. Aircraft X was told to fly straight in to runway 8 shortened and that the runway is closed west of charlie. (First 2;100 feet out of 8;850 feet) [airport ops worker] decides to drive down to the charlie intersection and park on the centerline. There is no demarcation for this closure other than a 150 foot wide intersection. [Airport ops worker] is parked on or past the easternmost edge of the intersection. FAA finished their operation and exited the rsa; again never entering the runway.[airport ops worker] announced that he will remain in place on the centerline until the next aircraft lands despite FAA being complete with his operation. Aircraft X appears to be on course to touch down near the middle of the charlie intersection. About 20-50 feet off of the ground aircraft X has to make a sudden juke to the right to swerve around the truck on the centerline; and literally flies around the truck and back to the runway to touch down. Aircraft X exited the runway without incident. [Airport ops worker] exited the runway and reopened the runway.first of all I cannot express how much my blood is boiling a week later from writing this. I have had the privilege of performing this great job for 15 years without hearing or seeing anyone get hurt or killed on my frequency. The fact that a procedure is being used and supported today that encourages that sort of result for no reason at all other than to demonstrate who has a bigger stick is irresponsible; dangerous and just outright spits in the face of every safety conscious effort that has been made inthe last 7 years to improve the national aviation services (NAS).FAA did not need/want the runway closed in the first place. [Airport ops worker] did not need to keep the runway closed after FAA left. [Airport ops worker] did not need to be parked on the centerline; so close to the new unmarked threshold. He essentially violated the 7:1 rsa for this new unmarked threshold.I have seen thousands of aircraft land runway 8 in my tenure at juneau. If the runway would have never closed this is exactly how this situation plays out. The vehicles goes in the rsa short of the runway. Aircraft X wants to exit at charlie; 2;100 feet down. Aircraft X does not even touch down until 1;000 feet down the 8;850 feet runway; well above the vehicle in the rsa. It is no factor at all; I will put a paycheck on that.with the scenario that [airport ops worker] forced us into aircraft X still would want to be off as soon as possible which is taxiway delta; 1;200 feet from the charlie intersection. Aircraft X will land as close to charlie as possible; this time much closer to the 'threshold'; this one being unmarked; and therefor much closer to the vehicle. Essentially touching down 100 feet down the 6;750 foot runway. Less runway available; no markings; closer to a vehicle that wasn't even doing something productive. I can't really say this any other way.the FAA ATC division needs to stop supporting these temporary runway closures. I'm sick and tired of hearing that no one can do anything about it because airport division makes the call on what they do with their runways. If airports want to show their muscles and close a runway; then ATC should hold people until the runway is available again or proper coordination/publication/demarcation is accomplished. If they need to take the runway to do their job; that is just fine. I have no problem waiting until they give me the runway back so I can continue doing my job. Traffic is light at night; making it a more suitable time to work on the runway rather than the [middle of the] afternoon during a recovery. During daytime traffic we do make every reasonable effort to accommodate access to the runway; but our primary responsibility is moving airplanes.whatever happens I just hope someone figures it out before winter. The old snow removal foremen have used this procedure over the years with mostly success; but they have been very humble; flexible and great at coordinating with the tower. They are on their way out and if we have this new day time foreman apply his 'bigger stick' attitude to imposed runway closures on an icy runway with little to no coordination I feel like we will see an accident in the near future.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A JNU Tower Controller reported the airport authority closed a portion of a runway unnecessarily. They parked their vehicle close enough to the closure point that a landing aircraft took evasive maneuvers to avoid.

Narrative: An airport vehicle closed a third of the only active paved runway in the middle of the day during peak traffic for absolutely no reason resulting in a compounding safety issue. I am late filing this report because I thought another controller had already filed and I was busy with other matters.Runway 8 in use. Wind favoring Runway 8 by about 8 knots. Traffic was increasing. FAA Maintenance requested permission to enter the Runway 26 safety area to replace a threshold light. I asked FAA if they are able to remain clear of the runway surface for the operation. FAA confirmed that they only need the safety area; not the runway. I put FAA in the safety area and clear of the runway at all times. I issued traffic information on FAA to my Runway 8 arrivals and departures since FAA is just off the departure end of Runway 8.FAA completed their operation and exited the safety area. A few minutes later FAA asked Tower permission to enter the safety area for Runway 8 this time; again to replace a runway threshold light. I asked FAA if they are able to remain clear of the runway surface for the operation. FAA confirmed that they only needed the safety area; not the runway. Understanding this; I elected to hold FAA short of the runway for a few moments as to not introduce a new hazard to the Runway Safety Area (RSA) while traffic is on short final for Runway 8; as it didn't give enough time for the pilot to object.[Airport ops worker] tells the tower that they are going to close the runway west of Charlie intersection after the traffic lands. I informed [Airport ops worker] that I need the runway for other ongoing operations; and also inform him that the FAA vehicle does not need a runway closure. [Airport ops worker] insisted that they are closing the runway anyway. I have a back in forth with [Airport ops worker] about the arriving and departing traffic in the queue that require full runway. I ask if [Airport ops worker] would like to just come back in the evening instead of during peak traffic. [Airport ops worker] declines; and insists that he will close the runway after the traffic land/depart.The runway is shown closed west of Taxiway Charlie. [Airport ops worker] proceeds on the closed portion from Bravo. FAA is not put on the runway and is instructed to proceed in the RSA and to remain clear of the runway at all times. Aircraft X calls Tower on a straight in for Runway 8. Aircraft X was told to fly straight in to Runway 8 shortened and that the runway is closed west of Charlie. (First 2;100 feet out of 8;850 feet) [Airport ops worker] decides to drive down to the Charlie intersection and park on the centerline. There is no demarcation for this closure other than a 150 foot wide intersection. [Airport ops worker] is parked on or past the easternmost edge of the intersection. FAA finished their operation and exited the RSA; again never entering the runway.[Airport ops worker] announced that he will remain in place on the centerline until the next aircraft lands despite FAA being complete with his operation. Aircraft X appears to be on course to touch down near the middle of the Charlie intersection. About 20-50 feet off of the ground aircraft X has to make a sudden juke to the right to swerve around the truck on the centerline; and literally flies around the truck and back to the runway to touch down. Aircraft X exited the runway without incident. [Airport ops worker] exited the runway and reopened the runway.First of all I cannot express how much my blood is boiling a week later from writing this. I have had the privilege of performing this great job for 15 years without hearing or seeing anyone get hurt or killed on my frequency. The fact that a procedure is being used and supported today that encourages that sort of result for no reason at all other than to demonstrate who has a bigger stick is irresponsible; dangerous and just outright spits in the face of every safety conscious effort that has been made inthe last 7 years to improve the National Aviation Services (NAS).FAA did not need/want the runway closed in the first place. [Airport ops worker] did not need to keep the runway closed after FAA left. [Airport ops worker] did not need to be parked on the centerline; so close to the new unmarked threshold. He essentially violated the 7:1 RSA for this new unmarked threshold.I have seen thousands of aircraft land Runway 8 in my tenure at Juneau. If the runway would have never closed this is exactly how this situation plays out. The vehicles goes in the RSA short of the runway. Aircraft X wants to exit at Charlie; 2;100 feet down. Aircraft X does not even touch down until 1;000 feet down the 8;850 feet runway; well above the vehicle in the RSA. It is no factor at all; I will put a paycheck on that.With the scenario that [Airport ops worker] forced us into aircraft X still would want to be off as soon as possible which is Taxiway Delta; 1;200 feet from the Charlie intersection. Aircraft X will land as close to Charlie as possible; this time much closer to the 'threshold'; this one being unmarked; and therefor much closer to the vehicle. Essentially touching down 100 feet down the 6;750 foot runway. Less runway available; no markings; closer to a vehicle that wasn't even doing something productive. I can't really say this any other way.The FAA ATC division needs to stop supporting these temporary runway closures. I'm sick and tired of hearing that no one can do anything about it because Airport Division makes the call on what they do with their runways. If airports want to show their muscles and close a runway; then ATC should hold people until the runway is available again or proper coordination/publication/demarcation is accomplished. If they need to take the runway to do their job; that is just fine. I have no problem waiting until they give me the runway back so I can continue doing my job. Traffic is light at night; making it a more suitable time to work on the runway rather than the [middle of the] afternoon during a recovery. During daytime traffic we do make every reasonable effort to accommodate access to the runway; but our primary responsibility is moving airplanes.Whatever happens I just hope someone figures it out before winter. The old snow removal foremen have used this procedure over the years with mostly success; but they have been very humble; flexible and great at coordinating with the Tower. They are on their way out and if we have this new day time foreman apply his 'bigger stick' attitude to imposed runway closures on an icy runway with little to no coordination I feel like we will see an accident in the near future.

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.