Aircraft X had less than standard separation from airport vehicle on runway. System error.

Attributes
ACN	138598
Time
Date	199003
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : roc
State Reference	NY
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff landing other
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : ground
Qualification	controller : non radar
ASRS Report	138598
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : local
Qualification	controller : non radar
Events
Anomaly	conflict : ground less severe incursion : runway non adherence : clearance non adherence : required legal separation non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified atc
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	faa : investigated
Miss Distance	unspecified : 3000
Supplementary
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Intra Facility Coordination Failure Operational Error

Narrative:

This error occurred because a truck was on the runway when an aircraft was making a touch and go. At roc field conditions are done opp direction. In this situation a county veh requested to check runway 7. The veh was told to 'proceed to runway 7.' the ground controller then told local control that vd would be calling them for a field check. At the same time vd responded, 'proceeding on 7.' the ground controller was further distracted by a request from maintenance to turn on the mal 5R. Local did not see the truck enter the runway. The bottom line is that the controller is always at fault. If you issue a clearance and the pilot doesn't respond, they technically have not received it. If you issue an instruction and they read it back wrong and you do not detect it, even though you haven't heard it or you are talking to another controller, facility, etc, you are still responsible for the error. The veh was not given permission to go onto the runway. That the veh operator is not at fault is ludicrous. Let's put the blame where it belongs. If a pilot, veh operator, etc is not responsible for not hearing an instruction, how can a controller then be held responsible for not hearing a readback when the readback is not required?

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT X HAD LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION FROM ARPT VEHICLE ON RWY. SYSTEM ERROR.

Narrative: THIS ERROR OCCURRED BECAUSE A TRUCK WAS ON THE RWY WHEN AN ACFT WAS MAKING A TOUCH AND GO. AT ROC FIELD CONDITIONS ARE DONE OPP DIRECTION. IN THIS SITUATION A COUNTY VEH REQUESTED TO CHK RWY 7. THE VEH WAS TOLD TO 'PROCEED TO RWY 7.' THE GND CTLR THEN TOLD LCL CTL THAT VD WOULD BE CALLING THEM FOR A FIELD CHK. AT THE SAME TIME VD RESPONDED, 'PROCEEDING ON 7.' THE GND CTLR WAS FURTHER DISTRACTED BY A REQUEST FROM MAINT TO TURN ON THE MAL 5R. LCL DID NOT SEE THE TRUCK ENTER THE RWY. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE CTLR IS ALWAYS AT FAULT. IF YOU ISSUE A CLRNC AND THE PLT DOESN'T RESPOND, THEY TECHNICALLY HAVE NOT RECEIVED IT. IF YOU ISSUE AN INSTRUCTION AND THEY READ IT BACK WRONG AND YOU DO NOT DETECT IT, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVEN'T HEARD IT OR YOU ARE TALKING TO ANOTHER CTLR, FAC, ETC, YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ERROR. THE VEH WAS NOT GIVEN PERMISSION TO GO ONTO THE RWY. THAT THE VEH OPERATOR IS NOT AT FAULT IS LUDICROUS. LET'S PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS. IF A PLT, VEH OPERATOR, ETC IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT HEARING AN INSTRUCTION, HOW CAN A CTLR THEN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT HEARING A READBACK WHEN THE READBACK IS NOT REQUIRED?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.