airsight Completes Two-Year Study on EASA's Triple One Concept

Download Presentation

Runway incursions represent one of the highest risk areas in aviation, carrying the potential for runway collisions with catastrophic consequences. This was shown to us very clearly by the tragic accident at Tokyo Haneda in January 2024, even though all passengers on the commercial flight were fortunately successfully evacuated.

As recommended by ICAO and Global Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Incursions (GAPPRI), the adoption of a common communication frequency for runway operations significantly enhances the situational awareness of all stakeholders operating on a runway. Nevertheless, this approach relies on the use of a shared language, i.e. English, to ensure effective communication. By ensuring a comprehensive understanding of events occurring on and around the runway, the Triple One Concept (One Runway, One Frequency, One Language) concept is intended as an additional safety layer within the aviation system.

While this seems logical in aviation, where English is the international language, it represents a significant change in many areas of Europe, where there are 24 national languages and many more spoken. The main challenge lies with airport staff, including electricians, firefighters and grass cutters, who would have to learn and improve their English.

Is Triple One a One-Size-Fits-All Solution for Runway Incursion Prevention?

It has been a truly challenging but also insightful two years studying the Triple One concept. Around 500 stakeholder representatives were involved, including aerodrome operators, ANSPs and pilots. The two years of extensive research and project work culminated in the airsight Airport Safety Day in September 2024, which represented a great opportunity to show the results to around 90 participants from all affected aviation sectors across Europe. 

What are the learnings?

• Diverse Approaches: Out of 69 European aerodromes surveyed, 5 apply a Triple One concept, 46 employ different variations, and 18 use separate frequencies for vehicles and aircraft on the runways. About 70% of vehicle drivers communicate with ATC in their national language, while others use English or mixed languages. In half of the cases, communication occurs on the (cross-coupled) TWR frequency, while the other half takes place on alternative frequencies or channels.

• Variable Effectiveness: Runway incursion (RI) rates vary significantly across aerodromes. Current statistics and the stakeholder surveys indicate that technical safety barriers are more effective than Triple One in preventing runway incursions. However, reporting must be improved and harmonized to allow better analysis in the future. Comparing RI rates at aerodromes with Triple One, also in the UK, to those with separate channels shows no significant difference.

• Operational Challenges: Many aerodromes rely on existing or alternative safety measures, lack statistical justification for change, and have major concerns about implementing Triple One. Key constraints include the extensive language training for vehicle drivers required for  successful implementation. While costs need to be considered, the challenges faced by staff, who must perform safety-critical tasks and achieve the required English proficiency, are in most cases significant. But language proficiency is not the only concern: even though it seems simple to merge frequencies and agree on a common language – at some airports this supposedly small change in a highly complex system may cause a significant impact on operational flows which are also safety-relevant. The example presented by Copenhagen Airport  showed the impact on the whole operational system, notably leading to ineffective coordination, more frequency changes and thus adding more potential sources of error.

• Potential Benefits: Runway incursions are THE risk in runway operations. High speeds, short distances, short reaction times, time pressure and high traffic densities are involved, and last but not least, the human factor. Around 25% of all runway incursions in the EU involve vehicles or persons. The primary aim of Triple One is to enhance the situational awareness of all operators on an active runway. Nevertheless, there is no reasonable evidence showing that the RI rate can be reduced when comparing airports with Triple One (even in the UK – where language should not be a challenge) with those that have not implemented the concept. However, it may serve as a crucial recovery measure to avoid the worst from happening – a collision on the runway. Interestingly, in 48% of 257 investigated ECCAIRS cases, Triple One could have been potentially beneficial by enhancing situational awareness for pilots and drivers.

• Risk Factors: Implementing Triple One is associated with additional risks. The evaluation at exemplary airports shows that smaller aerodromes face lower initial risks, whereas larger, more complex aerodromes with low English proficiency among vehicle drivers and in the labour market have to deal with greater risks. Key challenges include miscommunication, frequency congestion, information overload, and a shortage of qualified personnel, all of which significantly heighten safety risks.

• Language: The EU has 24 official languages,  so why not use one for aviation radio communication? EASA aerodrome regulations revised in June 2023 include the applicability of English language proficiency at an operational level (Level 4) for vehicle drivers on the whole manoeuvring area as of 2026. Many aerodrome operators try to estimate the efforts needed, e.g., how many training lessons would be required for a firefighter to achieve this language proficiency level? Where to find training organisations and assessors that meet the requirements? Is a language scheme tailored for pilots and air traffic controllers appropriate to apply for vehicle drivers. In their trials for implementing Triple One, Aeroporti di Roma (Fiumicino) showed that it is possible, but the preparation and implementation efforts are significant.

• Don’t forget the pilots! A commonly overlooked point in the overall discussion is the use of the national language between pilots and controllers – which is still legal and also common practice in many areas in Europe. This includes commercial traffic at certain airports in the same way as the general aviation sector. It is not only airports that would have to adapt – also FCL and SERA would have to be aligned with the concept idea.

As a result of all aspects, the study and its evaluation of alternative policy options showed that the legally required implementation of the Triple One concept cannot be recommended.

While it may be advantageous for some aerodromes, others might find more effective solutions through different mitigation measures. It might be more reasonable to focus on preventing runway incursions from happening in the first place. Regulations should create a framework to enhance and motivate stakeholders to continuously improve in the most efficient way and standardise where appropriate. To get an overview of the study and its result, please find our presentation here.

The full study is available on EASA’s website.

For more information or to discuss your specific needs in relation to associated topics, please feel free to contact us.