Narrative:

Maintenance ground veh requested clearance to runway 27 PAPI's for inspection. Ground veh was told to proceed as requested and hold short of runway 27. Ground veh advised holding short of runway 27. Ground controller said to proceed as requested. Ground veh reported an aircraft flying close to him. Flight check aircraft made low approach over veh. Error was discovered when electrician called his manager to report incident. The error was then reported to tower supervisor. In my opinion, the error occurred due to misinterp by ground controller to what the ground veh exactly wanted and to how the ground veh wanted to get there. Ground controller thought veh would go around runway 27 to get to the runway 27 papis. When ground veh advised he was holding short of runway 27, ground controller thought veh was reiterating instructions. This is where the confusion lays. The ground controller said, 'roger, proceed as requested.' the runway is 2-3 mi from tower cabin. Visibility can be a hindrance. Also in regard to currency, the ground controller had the minimum requirements for tower currency the 2 previous months, with almost non-existent time on ground ct. This was due to tower training. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: several callbacks due to old reporting form used which went to FAA headquarters first. Reporter says that due to training and schedule rotation, he had not worked ground control for a while and assumed when veh called that it would use taxiway sa to the end of the runway. Apparently the veh driver wanted to use the runway, or at least that was the route he took. No coordination between local and ground control took place, and FAA flight check made low approach over veh.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MAINTENANCE VEHICLE DRIVING DOWN ACTIVE RWY WHEN FAA FLT CHECK ACFT MADE LOW APCH. MISCOM PROBLEM BETWEEN GND CTLR AND VEHICLE DRIVER.

Narrative: MAINT GND VEH REQUESTED CLRNC TO RWY 27 PAPI'S FOR INSPECTION. GND VEH WAS TOLD TO PROCEED AS REQUESTED AND HOLD SHORT OF RWY 27. GND VEH ADVISED HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 27. GND CTLR SAID TO PROCEED AS REQUESTED. GND VEH RPTED AN ACFT FLYING CLOSE TO HIM. FLT CHK ACFT MADE LOW APCH OVER VEH. ERROR WAS DISCOVERED WHEN ELECTRICIAN CALLED HIS MGR TO RPT INCIDENT. THE ERROR WAS THEN RPTED TO TWR SUPVR. IN MY OPINION, THE ERROR OCCURRED DUE TO MISINTERP BY GND CTLR TO WHAT THE GND VEH EXACTLY WANTED AND TO HOW THE GND VEH WANTED TO GET THERE. GND CTLR THOUGHT VEH WOULD GO AROUND RWY 27 TO GET TO THE RWY 27 PAPIS. WHEN GND VEH ADVISED HE WAS HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 27, GND CTLR THOUGHT VEH WAS REITERATING INSTRUCTIONS. THIS IS WHERE THE CONFUSION LAYS. THE GND CTLR SAID, 'ROGER, PROCEED AS REQUESTED.' THE RWY IS 2-3 MI FROM TWR CABIN. VISIBILITY CAN BE A HINDRANCE. ALSO IN REGARD TO CURRENCY, THE GND CTLR HAD THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TWR CURRENCY THE 2 PREVIOUS MONTHS, WITH ALMOST NON-EXISTENT TIME ON GND CT. THIS WAS DUE TO TWR TRNING. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: SEVERAL CALLBACKS DUE TO OLD RPTING FORM USED WHICH WENT TO FAA HQ FIRST. RPTR SAYS THAT DUE TO TRNING AND SCHEDULE ROTATION, HE HAD NOT WORKED GND CTL FOR A WHILE AND ASSUMED WHEN VEH CALLED THAT IT WOULD USE TXWY SA TO THE END OF THE RWY. APPARENTLY THE VEH DRIVER WANTED TO USE THE RWY, OR AT LEAST THAT WAS THE RTE HE TOOK. NO COORD BTWN LCL AND GND CTL TOOK PLACE, AND FAA FLT CHK MADE LOW APCH OVER VEH.

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.