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.