Narrative:

Ric airport was IFR with 1/4 to 1/2 mile tower visibility; which means the controllers could not see most of the runways and taxiways. Runway 34 was the landing runway and runway 2 was being used for departures. I relieved the cpc who was working the ground controller; clearance delivery; controller in charge position combined. In the briefing; he indicated that there was a vehicle working on a sign at runway 25 and taxiway left. I had talked to airport operations earlier that evening and I was aware that there was a sign out of service on the intersection of runway 34 and runway 25. I questioned the controller being relieved about the position of the vehicle and he again said the vehicle was not on runway 34. After assuming the position; I questioned the vehicle directly and the vehicle operator indicated that he was on runway 34 and runway 25. I instructed the vehicle to exit runway 34 because there was traffic on an 8 mile final. Vehicle complied and there was no loss of separation. Recommendation; use standard phraseology in response to vehicle requests. Emphasize need for heightened awareness during periods of reduced visibility.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RIC Controller described a confused communication event between ATC and an airport vehicle working on or near an active runway during low visibility conditions.

Narrative: RIC airport was IFR with 1/4 to 1/2 mile Tower visibility; which means the controllers could not see most of the runways and taxiways. Runway 34 was the landing runway and Runway 2 was being used for departures. I relieved the CPC who was working the Ground Controller; Clearance Delivery; CIC position combined. In the briefing; he indicated that there was a vehicle working on a sign at Runway 25 and Taxiway L. I had talked to Airport Operations earlier that evening and I was aware that there was a sign out of service on the intersection of Runway 34 and Runway 25. I questioned the Controller being relieved about the position of the vehicle and he again said the vehicle was not on Runway 34. After assuming the position; I questioned the vehicle directly and the vehicle operator indicated that he was on Runway 34 and Runway 25. I instructed the vehicle to exit Runway 34 because there was traffic on an 8 mile final. Vehicle complied and there was no loss of separation. Recommendation; use standard phraseology in response to vehicle requests. Emphasize need for heightened awareness during periods of reduced visibility.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.