Narrative:

No aircraft were involved, but the potential was there. An airport operator, who normally is not permitted to drive on the airport, was given approval to operate. In the beginning, only 1 van was running calling themselves 'van 1.' if the local control noticed them holding we were to call them, if not, they called. I noticed 1 white van holding north of runway 7L at taxiway N5. When I could, I told van 1, 'cross runway 7L.' I got 2 responses, overlapping. I rexmitted to ensure the proper vehicle got the instruction. I then noticed 2 vans crossing in opposite directions. I told the vans they had to number themselves better than that (they were both 'van 1'). They had added a second van to their operation without the controller's knowledge. The facility manager was in the northbound van which crossed without approval. He was en route to watch a race and did nothing. No official was taken. Another controller tried to move a van out of the way of an exiting aircraft. Once again there were 2 vans, 1 north, and 1 south of the runway. Once again, they both idented themselves as the same identify. I was even criticized by the deputy for not understanding the LOA which clearly states the need for a number. Silly me -- I guess I was to assume everyone was 'van 1' and not 'van 1, van 2' etc. The potential for an aircraft getting together with them was increased because of the identify problem. A problem the facility chooses to ignore.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DAB LCL CTLR CONCERNED WITH CORRECT APPLICATION OF GND MAINT VEHICLE ARPT OPS WHEN MULTIPLE DAB VEHICLES ARE PRESENT AND OPERATING ON THE ARPT.

Narrative: NO ACFT WERE INVOLVED, BUT THE POTENTIAL WAS THERE. AN ARPT OPERATOR, WHO NORMALLY IS NOT PERMITTED TO DRIVE ON THE ARPT, WAS GIVEN APPROVAL TO OPERATE. IN THE BEGINNING, ONLY 1 VAN WAS RUNNING CALLING THEMSELVES 'VAN 1.' IF THE LCL CTL NOTICED THEM HOLDING WE WERE TO CALL THEM, IF NOT, THEY CALLED. I NOTICED 1 WHITE VAN HOLDING N OF RWY 7L AT TXWY N5. WHEN I COULD, I TOLD VAN 1, 'CROSS RWY 7L.' I GOT 2 RESPONSES, OVERLAPPING. I REXMITTED TO ENSURE THE PROPER VEHICLE GOT THE INSTRUCTION. I THEN NOTICED 2 VANS XING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. I TOLD THE VANS THEY HAD TO NUMBER THEMSELVES BETTER THAN THAT (THEY WERE BOTH 'VAN 1'). THEY HAD ADDED A SECOND VAN TO THEIR OP WITHOUT THE CTLR'S KNOWLEDGE. THE FACILITY MGR WAS IN THE NBOUND VAN WHICH CROSSED WITHOUT APPROVAL. HE WAS ENRTE TO WATCH A RACE AND DID NOTHING. NO OFFICIAL WAS TAKEN. ANOTHER CTLR TRIED TO MOVE A VAN OUT OF THE WAY OF AN EXITING ACFT. ONCE AGAIN THERE WERE 2 VANS, 1 N, AND 1 S OF THE RWY. ONCE AGAIN, THEY BOTH IDENTED THEMSELVES AS THE SAME IDENT. I WAS EVEN CRITICIZED BY THE DEPUTY FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING THE LOA WHICH CLRLY STATES THE NEED FOR A NUMBER. SILLY ME -- I GUESS I WAS TO ASSUME EVERYONE WAS 'VAN 1' AND NOT 'VAN 1, VAN 2' ETC. THE POTENTIAL FOR AN ACFT GETTING TOGETHER WITH THEM WAS INCREASED BECAUSE OF THE IDENT PROB. A PROB THE FACILITY CHOOSES TO IGNORE.

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.