ICAO airport code

The ICAO airport code or location indicator is a four-letter code designating aerodromes around the world. These codes, as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization and published in ICAO Document 7910: Location Indicators, are used by air traffic control and airline operations such as flight planning. ICAO codes are used to identify other aviation facilities such as weather stations, International Flight Service Stations or Area Control Centers, whether or not they are located at airports. Flight information regions are identified by a unique ICAO-code; the International Civil Aviation Organization was formed in 1947 under the auspices of the United Nations, it established Flight Information Regions for controlling air traffic and making airport identification simple and clear. Code selections in North America were based on existing radio station identifiers. For example, radio stations in Canada were starting with "C", so it seemed logical to begin Canadian airport identifiers with a C.

The United States had many pre-existing airports with established mnemonic codes. Their ICAO codes were formed by prepending a K to the existing codes, as half the radio station identifiers in the US began with K. Most ICAO codes outside the US and Canada have a stronger geographical structure. Most of the rest of the world was classified in a more planned top-down manner, thus Uxxx referred to the Soviet Union with the second letter denoting the specific region within it, so forth. Europe had too many locations for only one starting letter, so it was split into Exxx for northern Europe and Lxxx for southern Europe; the second letter was more specific: EGxx was the United Kingdom, EDxx was West Germany, ETxx was East Germany, LExx was Spain, LAxx was Albania, so on. France was designated LFxx. ICAO codes are separate and different from IATA codes, which are used for airline timetables and baggage tags. For example, the IATA code for London's Heathrow Airport is LHR and its ICAO code is EGLL. ICAO codes are seen by passengers and the general public on flight-tracking services such as FlightAware, but passengers will more see the IATA codes, such as on their tickets and their luggage tags.

In general IATA codes are derived from the name of the airport or the city it serves, while ICAO codes are distributed by region and country. Far more aerodromes have ICAO codes than IATA codes, which are sometimes assigned to railway stations as well. Unlike the IATA codes, the ICAO codes have a regional structure and are comprehensive. In general, the first letter is allocated by continent and represents a country or group of countries within that continent; the second letter represents a country within that region, the remaining two are used to identify each airport. The exception to this rule is larger countries that have single-letter country codes, where the remaining three letters identify the airport. In either case, unlike IATA codes, ICAO codes provide geographical context. For example, if one knows that the ICAO code for Heathrow is EGLL one can deduce that the airport EGGP is somewhere in the UK. On the other hand, knowing that the IATA code for Heathrow is LHR does not enable one to deduce the location of the airport LHV with any greater certainty.

There are a few exceptions to the regional structure of the ICAO code made for political or administrative reasons. For example, the RAF Mount Pleasant air base in the Falkland Islands is assigned the ICAO code EGYP as though it were in the United Kingdom, but a nearby civilian airport such as Port Stanley Airport is assigned SFAL, consistent with South America. Saint Pierre and Miquelon is controlled by France, airports there are assigned LFxx as though they were in Europe. Further, in region L, all available 2-letter prefixes have been exhausted and thus no additional countries can be added, thus when Kosovo declared independence, there was no space in the Lxxx codes to accommodate it, so airports in Kosovo were assigned BKxx, grouping Kosovo with Greenland and Iceland. The letters I, J and X are not used as the first letter of any ICAO identifier. In Russia and CIS, Latin letter X is used to designate government and experimental aviation airfields in internal airfield codes similar in structure and purpose to ICAO codes but not used internationally.

Q is reserved for other non-geographical special uses. In the contiguous United States and some airports in Mexico, but not all, airports have been assigned three-letter IATA codes; these are the same as their ICAO code, but without the leading K, C, or M.. These codes are not to be confused with radio or television call signs though both countries use four-letter call signs starting with those letters. However, because Alaska and United States territories have their own 2-letter ICAO prefix, the situation the

Linguistic validation

Linguistic validation is the process of investigating the reliability, conceptual equivalence, content validity of translations of patient-reported outcome measures. Most linguistic validation refers to a process whereby translated text is tested with patients in the target population and target language group through cognitive debriefing interviews. For example, if the PRO instrument is intended to measure the symptoms of diabetes in a trial in Denmark, the linguistic validation interviews would be conducted with diabetic patients in Denmark, who speak Danish as their mother tongue; this interview exercise ensures that items are appropriate for use in the target population, are expressed and understood. The exercise is an important tool for demonstrating content validity when compared with the source. During the interview, the respondents complete the questionnaire, answer a series of open-ended questions on its content and explain what they think each item means in their own words; the results of this cognitive debriefing exercise should therefore show the respondents' understanding of the translation, alterations can be made after this stage if nuances of meaning in the source text have not been expressed in the translation and understood by the respondents.

The process ensures multi-lingual harmonization of the translations, by making sure that the questionnaire is understood in the same way by target populations across all language groups, thus ensuring that the resulting quantitative data can be compared across language groups. An alternative method of conducting linguistic validation is to ask a clinician who specialises in working with the target population to review the text, to ensure that it is understandable; the clinician's understanding and knowledge of the usual terminology and phrases used by the patient group can be utilised, thus ensuring that the wording used in the translation reflects that which would be used by the target patient group themselves. Some parties feel. However, regulatory authorities consider it preferable to validate measures through the above-mentioned cognitive debriefing with the patients in the target population where possible, clinician reviews are more reserved for clinician-reported measures, or for particular circumstances in which testing with patients in the target population is problematic.

Some companies use the term'linguistic validation' to refer to the entire process for the translation of PRO measures as described in the'Principles of Good Practice', the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Task Force report if this process does not include patient interviews or a clinician review. The recommended methodology utilises double, independently created translations into the target language, which are combined into a'reconciled version' which uses the best of both forward translations; the reconciled version, or harmonization, is back translated by two individual blinded translators who have no previous knowledge of the original questionnaire. The back translations are used as a window into the translated version, so that the project manager can assess whether the translated version assesses the concepts measured by the source questionnaire; this stage is described as the back translation review. Ideally, it would be followed by a clinician review. Please note however, PROs should not be confused with patient-centered outcomes.

PCOs implies the use of a questionnaire covering concerns that are specific to a patient. A comprehensive linguistic validation process including cognitive debriefing is vital to demonstrate content validity in translations for use in a U. S. Food and Drug Administration submission. U. S. Food and Drug Administration The International Society for Pharmoeconomics and Outcomes Research Mapi

Cool, Texas

Cool is a town in Parker County, United States. The population was 157 at the 2010 census. Cool is located at 32°47′54″N 98°00′46″W. According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 1.6 square miles, all of it land. As of the census of 2000, there were 162 people, 62 households, 49 families residing in the city; the population density was 98.9 people per square mile. There were 69 housing units at an average density of 42.1 per square mile. The racial makeup of the city was 96.91% White, 2.47% from other races, 0.62% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.70% of the population. There were 62 households out of which 32.3% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 64.5% were married couples living together, 11.3% had a female householder with no husband present, 19.4% were non-families. 17.7% of all households were made up of individuals and 8.1% had someone living alone, 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.61 and the average family size was 2.92.

In the city, the population was spread out with 24.7% under the age of 18, 4.3% from 18 to 24, 27.8% from 25 to 44, 22.8% from 45 to 64, 20.4% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 41 years. For every 100 females, there were 90.6 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 96.8 males. The median income for a household in the city was $30,938, the median income for a family was $31,875. Males had a median income of $36,875 versus $22,917 for females; the per capita income for the city was $14,112. About 16.4% of families and 20.9% of the population were below the poverty line, including 26.7% of those under the age of eighteen and 15.2% of those sixty five or over. Public education in the city of Cool is provided by the Millsap Independent School District; the climate in this area is characterized by high temperatures and evenly distributed precipitation throughout the year. The Köppen Climate System describes the weather as humid subtropical, uses the abbreviation Cfa