Narrative:

I was working local with jurisdiction over 2 runways; 22L and 27; which intersect. Arrs to both runways with lahso. Numerous vehicles were calling on the 2 active runways; both crossing and traveling on them. Also proceeding on a 3RD closed runway (15R). Several times the vehicles failed to read back hold short instructions; eg car xx; hold short of runway 4R and say intentions. Car xx would say the intentions; but not read back the hold short. One vehicle requested to cross runway 27. When given a crossing clearance with traffic on 1 and 1/2 mile final; he declined; saying he needed more room as he was painting. When he was later crossed but told not to paint; he did not cross and no readback at all. At other times; readbacks were 'we'll hold short' with no runway read back; or no call sign used; even though there were several vehicles. Between improper readbacks; missing readbacks; and not crossing when instructed to; it was extremely difficult to know which vehicles were doing what and ensure separation. This vehicular movement was happening while arrs were landing; creating a complex situation. Poor radio technique by vehicle operators created confusion and potential safety issues. Vehicles; even those operated by the airport operator; need to use phraseology. Perhaps familiarity led to complacence. Possibility of an incursion was high. Such vehicle operations should perhaps be restricted to other less busy times of day; or runways should be closed until the needed work is completed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BOS LCL CTLR EXPRESSED CONCERNS REGARDING VEHICLE OPS ON ARPT WHICH INVOLVED PHRASEOLOGY FAMILIARITY; READBACK FAILURES; AND ARPT PROCEDURAL KNOWLEDGE.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING LOCAL WITH JURISDICTION OVER 2 RWYS; 22L AND 27; WHICH INTERSECT. ARRS TO BOTH RWYS WITH LAHSO. NUMEROUS VEHICLES WERE CALLING ON THE 2 ACTIVE RWYS; BOTH CROSSING AND TRAVELING ON THEM. ALSO PROCEEDING ON A 3RD CLOSED RWY (15R). SEVERAL TIMES THE VEHICLES FAILED TO READ BACK HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS; EG CAR XX; HOLD SHORT OF RWY 4R AND SAY INTENTIONS. CAR XX WOULD SAY THE INTENTIONS; BUT NOT READ BACK THE HOLD SHORT. ONE VEHICLE REQUESTED TO CROSS RWY 27. WHEN GIVEN A CROSSING CLRNC WITH TFC ON 1 AND 1/2 MILE FINAL; HE DECLINED; SAYING HE NEEDED MORE ROOM AS HE WAS PAINTING. WHEN HE WAS LATER CROSSED BUT TOLD NOT TO PAINT; HE DID NOT CROSS AND NO READBACK AT ALL. AT OTHER TIMES; READBACKS WERE 'WE'LL HOLD SHORT' WITH NO RWY READ BACK; OR NO CALL SIGN USED; EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE SEVERAL VEHICLES. BETWEEN IMPROPER READBACKS; MISSING READBACKS; AND NOT CROSSING WHEN INSTRUCTED TO; IT WAS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHICH VEHICLES WERE DOING WHAT AND ENSURE SEPARATION. THIS VEHICULAR MOVEMENT WAS HAPPENING WHILE ARRS WERE LNDG; CREATING A COMPLEX SIT. POOR RADIO TECHNIQUE BY VEHICLE OPERATORS CREATED CONFUSION AND POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUES. VEHICLES; EVEN THOSE OPERATED BY THE ARPT OPERATOR; NEED TO USE PHRASEOLOGY. PERHAPS FAMILIARITY LED TO COMPLACENCE. POSSIBILITY OF AN INCURSION WAS HIGH. SUCH VEHICLE OPS SHOULD PERHAPS BE RESTRICTED TO OTHER LESS BUSY TIMES OF DAY; OR RWYS SHOULD BE CLOSED UNTIL THE NEEDED WORK IS COMPLETED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.