Conceptual Framework For Single Pilot Operations - NASA
Conceptual Framework for Single Pilot OperationsKarl D. BilimoriaNASA Ames Research CenterMoffett Field, CA 94035, USAkarl.bilimoria@nasa.govWalter W. JohnsonNASA Ames Research CenterMoffett Field, CA 94035, USAwalter.johnson@nasa.govABSTRACTSingle pilot operations (SPO) refers to flying a commercialaircraft with only one pilot in the cockpit, assisted byadvanced onboard automation and/or ground operatorsproviding piloting support services. Properly implemented,SPO could provide operating cost savings whilemaintaining a level of safety no less than conventional twopilot commercial operations. A concept of operations(ConOps) for any paradigm describes the characteristics ofits various components and their integration in a multidimensional design space. This paper presents key optionsfor human/automation function allocation being consideredby NASA in its ongoing development of a SPO ConOps.Paul C. SchutteNASA Langley Research CenterHampton, VA 23681, USApaul.c.schutte@nasa.govintroduction of advanced cockpit automation and newground operator positions using support tools and airground communication links. SPO will yield economicbenefits if the costs of new ground operators and advancedautomation are surpassed by the savings from a 50%reduction in cockpit crew costs. In addition to the primarycost savings arising from eliminating the first officerposition, there will likely be secondary savings due tobetter crew connection integrity and smaller/lightercockpits in next-generation commercial aircraft designedfor single-pilot operations.KeywordsSingle pilot operations, concept of operations, functionallocation, crew resource management.1. INTRODUCTIONMany aircraft, such as small private airplanes or militaryfighters, are operated with a single pilot in the cockpit.However, U.S. federal aviation regulations (FARs)currently require a cockpit crew of at least two pilots formost commercial air carriers. The cost associated withcrews (salaries, benefits, training, etc.) is a significantfraction of the aircraft operating cost, especially forregional/commuter operators that typically fly smalleraircraft with fewer seats than major airline operators thatfly narrow/wide-body aircraft (see Fig. 1). Additionally,current trends indicate a possible shortage of qualifiedpilots in the future [1]. Crew cost and availability issuesprovide the motivation to explore the feasibility of safelyoperating a commercial aircraft with a single pilot in thecockpit assisted by advanced onboard automation andground operators providing flight support services wellbeyond those currently delivered by aircraft dispatchers.This new paradigm is termed Single Pilot Operations(SPO). A key requirement of SPO is to maintain safety at alevel no less than current two-pilot operations by theInternational Conference on Human-ComputerInteraction in Aerospace (HCI-Aero 2014)July 30 – August 1, 2014Figure 1. Crew cost vs. number of seatsNASA is conducting research on SPO feasibility under itsAirspace Systems Program [2]. Some aspects of SPO arealso being researched in Europe under the AdvancedCockpit for Reduction Of Stress and Workload (ACROSS)program [3]. An important element of NASA’s SPOresearch is the development of a concept of operations(ConOps) that covers the roles and responsibilities of theprincipal human operators, the automation tools used by thehumans, and the operating procedures for human-humanand human-automation interactions. This ConOps is beingconstructed using insights gained from a variety of sourcesSanta Clara, California, USA1
including subject matter experts, human-in-the-loopexperiments examining key aspects of the ConOps, andcost-benefit analyses.This paper presents key options for human/automationfunction allocation being considered by NASA in itsongoing development of a SPO ConOps. It is beyond thescope of this paper to explore all options in the ConOpsdesign space. The options presented here were selected bythe research team based on insights drawn from subjectmatter experts participating in an SPO technical exchangemeeting [4] and knowledge gained from initial human-inthe loop experiments studying specific aspects of SPO [5,6]. Section 2 provides a brief history of the evolution froma five-person cockpit to the current two-person cockpit, andoutlines some implications of one-person cockpitoperations. Section 3 presents a taxonomy of operatingconditions for SPO, to establish high level requirements foroperator functions and equipment. Section 4 presents keyoptions for function allocation among various types ofhuman operators, while Section 5 describes considerationsfor human-automation function allocation.Someconcluding remarks are presented in Section 6.with a person on the ground to solve a complex problem.There is also the issue of single-pilot incapacitation, whichcould be addressed by a ground operator directingadvanced cockpit automation.Implementation of SPO involves a transition from thecurrent paradigm of a Captain, First Officer, and Dispatcherteam using conventional automation tools, to a newparadigm of a Captain and Ground Operator teaminteracting with advanced human-centered automation tools(see Fig. 2). Although many of the functions currentlyperformed by the first officer could be performed by somecombination of ground operators and advanced automationunder SPO, there is an opportunity for a “clean-slate”allocation of functions for Captain, Ground Operator, andAutomation. This clean-slate approach to SPO wouldresult in a new/different model for crew resourcemanagement (CRM).2. COCKPIT CREW COMPLEMENTSPO may be regarded as the next phase of a decades-longdownward trend in the number of cockpit crew required forsafe operations. In the 1950s, commercial aircraft typicallyhad five cockpit crewmembers: captain, first officer (copilot), flight engineer, navigator, and radio operator.Advances in voice communication equipment removed theneed for a dedicated radio operator position. Next,advances in navigation equipment (e.g., inertial navigationsystems) removed the need for a dedicated navigatorposition. Finally, advances in monitoring equipment forengines and aircraft systems removed the need for adedicated flight engineer position.Over the past 25 years or so, commercial aircraft haveoperated with a two-person cockpit (captain and firstofficer). It is important to note that the functions associatedwith the radio operator, navigator, and flight engineerpositions did not simply disappear – they are nowperformed by the captain and/or first officer, assisted bycockpit equipment that has greatly reduced the humanworkload originally required to perform those functions.This new equipment along with new flight deck procedureshave preserved or increased flight safety, even with areduced crew. Economic benefits have been realizedbecause the savings from reduced cockpit crew expenseshave exceeded the costs of equipage.The transition from a two-pilot cockpit to a single-pilotcockpit will be significantly more challenging than thetransitions from a five-person cockpit to a two-personcockpit. Unlike the previous transitions, it may not bepossible to assure safety of SPO simply by adding newautomation to the cockpit. There will likely be situationswhere the single pilot in the cockpit needs to collaborateFigure 2. Conventional vs. single-pilot operations3. TAXONOMY OF OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR SPOThe characteristics (e.g., roles/responsibilities, tools,procedures) of an SPO ConOps will depend in part on thenature of the operating condition. A basic taxonomy ispresented in Fig. 3, based on the pilot’s physiological andbehavioral condition (normal vs. incapacitated) and flightcondition (nominal vs. off-nominal). It is noted that theterm “flight condition” refers to the myriad factorsaffecting the flight other than the pilot’s condition, such asthe status of aircraft systems, weather conditions, andairport availability.As the taxonomy condition (TC) progresses from 1 to 4, theoperating conditions become more challenging, and therequirements for safe implementation of SPO become morecomplex. For example, in TC–1, there may not be muchneed for ground operator assistance; the cockpit automationcould provide most of the assistance needed by the captain.In TC–2, the captain would likely request the assistance ofa ground operator, especially in complex off-nominalconditions with high cognitive workload. TC–3 wouldrequire a ground operator to assume the role of captain andinteract with cockpit automation to land the aircraft. In2
TC–4 the ground operator acting as captain may needassistance from other ground operators to land the aircraft.between human operators and automation is discussed inSection 5.4.1. CaptainFigure 3. A taxonomy of operating conditions for SPOUnder SPO, it is assumed that an incapacitated pilotcondition would be handled as a declared emergency, withair traffic control (ATC) providing special handling to theflight which would be directed to land by a ground operatorinteracting with advanced cockpit automation. A study [7]conducted by the FAA Aeromedical Institute for U.S.flights over the six-year period 1993–1998 found 39instances of in-flight medical incapacitation, defined as acondition in which a flight crewmember was unable toperform any flight duties; the in-flight event rate was 0.045per 100,000 flying hours. This corresponds, on average, toone incapacitation event per 1.85 months or per 2.2 millionflying hours. Although these statistics may be somewhatdifferent in the SPO implementation timeframe, theincapacitation rates would likely be low enough thatdeclaring a pilot-incapacitation emergency would notunduly disrupt ATC operations.The necessity for safely landing an SPO aircraft with anincapacitated pilot will be a key driver of technologyrequirements for cockpit automation, remote flight-controltools for the ground operator, and air/ground data links.The implementation of these technologies with sufficientreliability/redundancy will likely represent a significantpart of the costs of implementing SPO. It is noted thatsome components of the technologies required for safelanding in an incapacitated-pilot scenario, such as autolandsystems, are already available and in current use.The captain (unless incapacitated) serves as the pilot-incommand (PIC), making all decisions pertaining tocommand of the flight. As such, he/she bears the ultimateresponsibility for safe and efficient operation of the flight.The captain is the final decision-maker regarding the flightmission, and (according to procedures) calls on automationand ground operator assets to accomplish this mission. Thecaptain’s main tasks are to manage risk and resources (bothhuman and automation). Under SPO, the fundamentalcommand/leadership role of the captain may not change,but the individual tasks and duties of the Captain willchange significantly. The captain will likely take on someof the conventional Pilot Flying (PF) and Pilot Monitoring(PM) duties, while other PF and PM duties are allocated tothe automation or the ground operators. The characteristicsof the resources available to the captain will also be quitedifferent, e.g., no first officer in cockpit, expanded menu ofresources available from ground operators, new/advancedautomation available in the cockpit. With this change infunction allocation, a new CRM model will likely berequired under SPO.Figure 4. Representative layout of airline operations center4.2. Ground Operators4. FUNCTION ALLOCATION FOR HUMAN OPERATORSThis section presents considerations for function allocationamong the human operators on the aircraft and ground.Characteristics of functions performed by the captain andground operators are described; this includes options fororganization structures for ground operators. The materialpresented in this section is not intended to be an allencompassing treatment of SPO options for functionallocation among human operators; its scope is limited tothe options being considered by NASA in its ongoingdevelopment of a ConOps for SPO. Function allocationIn current operations, flights receive ground supportservices from their airline operations center (AOC). Figure4 depicts key positions in a typical AOC, which issupervised by an operations manager. There are variousAOC positions that provide specialized services, e.g.,dispatchers, ATC coordinators, crew meteorologists. It is anticipated that SPO would primarilymodify the functions of the dispatchers, with limited impacton other AOC positions.3
In current operations, each dispatcher serves around 20aircraft that are in various phases of flight at differentlocations around the country or even the world. By U.S.regulation, the dispatcher shares responsibility with thecaptain for safe operation of the flight. A significant part ofthe dispatcher’s duties lies in the pre-flight phase, wherethe dispatcher consults with the captain and uses variousAOC tools to develop a flight plan (e.g., routing, cruisealtitude, airspeed), determine fuel loading, meet weight andbalance requirements, and ensure compliance with theminimum equipment list (MEL). After the dispatcher andcaptain sign the flight release, the dispatch functionstransition to flight monitoring and serving as a conduit forinformation between the aircraft and the AOC. Thedispatcher also plays an active role supporting the cockpitcrew during off-nominal conditions such as aircraftequipment malfunctions, diversions to a differentdestination airport, and large ( 100 nmi) changes inrouting. Dispatchers generally serve their flights all theway from pre-flight planning to gate arrival.In SPO, dispatchers become ground operators (see Fig. 4)who collectively perform conventional dispatch functionsas well as piloting support functions, although each groundoperator does not necessarily perform both types offunctions. Ground operator teams collectively perform thefollowing three core functions: (1) Conventional Dispatchof multiple aircraft; (2) Distributed Piloting support ofmultiple nominal aircraft; (3) Dedicated Piloting support ofa single off-nominal aircraft. The Conventional Dispatchfunction has been described above.The Distributed Piloting function corresponds tobasic/routine piloting support tasks such as reading achecklist, conducting cross-checks, diagnosing an aircraftsystem caution light, determining the fuel consequences ofa holding instruction, etc. It is presumed that a singleground operator can provide such services to multipleaircraft because these non-urgent and relatively brief taskscan be prioritized and executed sequentially. This functionwould be applicable only to nominal aircraft, correspondingto Taxonomy Condition 1 defined in Fig. 3.The Dedicated Piloting function corresponds to sustainedone-on-one piloting support requested by the captain underhigh-workload or challenging off-nominal operatingconditions such as an engine fire, cabin depressurization, ordiversion to an alternate airport due to low fuel and/or badweather, etc. This function is also applicable to situationswhere the ground operator has to take command of anaircraft whose captain has become incapacitated. The tasksassociated with this function may include flying theaircraft, e.g., remote manipulation of the aircraft’s flightmanagement system (FMS) for route amendments, orremote manipulation of the aircraft’s mode control panel(MCP) for sending speed/altitude/heading commands to theautopilot. The Dedicated Piloting function would beapplicable to Taxonomy Conditions 2, 3, and 4 defined inFig. 3. The skills and training required to perform thededicated piloting support function are essentially the sameas those of a conventional pilot. One possibility is arotating schedule where a pilot is scheduled for severalweeks of airborne (cockpit) assignments followed by aweek of ground (AOC) assignments.Ground operators will require tools similar to those on theflight deck for issuing high-level flight control commandssuch as making route changes in the aircraft FMS, ormanipulating airspeed/altitude/heading commands via theMCP. The ground operator tool set may also include nextgeneration dispatcher tools to reduce workload.Additionally, SPO will require a secure and reliable airground link for voice and data communications. Theserequirements are similar to those currently beingconsidered for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)operations in the national airspace system.There are many possible structures for organizing groundoperators to perform the three core functions describedabove. While safe operation is the paramount concern,another key consideration is the operating cost associatedwith the ground operator team structure. One cost factor isthe number of ground operators relative to the number ofaircraft they can safely support, as well as thetraining/qualification requirements for those groundoperators. Another cost factor is the number of groundstations that require complex and reliable (and henceexpensive) equipment such as that required to remotelycontrol an aircraft’s flight-path. Cost/complexity of theground operator support system can be traded off againstcost/complexity of the cockpit automation support system(this will be discussed in Section 5). Two ground operatororganization structures of interest, hybrid ground operatorunit and specialist ground operator unit, are describedbelow and illustrated in Fig. 5. These ground operatororganization structures have been selected by NASA, basedon subject matter expert opinion, for evaluation in anupcoming human-in-the-loop evaluation.4.2.1. Hybrid Ground Operator UnitIn this organizational unit, each hybrid ground operator(HGO) is trained and certified to perform all three corefunctions: Conventional Dispatch tasks as well asDistributed Piloting and Dedicated Piloting support tasks.Each HGO generally serves multiple flights from pre-flightplanning to gate arrival. However, if/when one of theseflights encounters an off-nominal condition that requiresdedicated support, the other aircraft are handed off toseveral other HGOs under the direction of the unit’ssupervisor. Some of these handoffs may require a briefingif the involved aircraft need special handling instructions.The HGO then provides one-on-one support to the offnominal aircraft, calling upon other AOC positions (e.g.,maintenance advisors) as necessary. After the off-nominalsituation is satisfactorily resolved, the aircraft previouslyhanded off by this HGO are returned to him/her if theyhave not already landed.4
5. HUMAN-AUTOMATION FUNCTION ALLOCATIONThis section presents some considerations for allocatingfunctions between human operators and automation. First,the cost tradeoffs between automation and human operatorsare conceptualized. Next, some high-level requirements fornew cockpit automation are introduced. Finally, someobservations are made about desired collaboration betweenhuman operators and automation.5.1. Options SpaceFigure 5. Examples of ground operator unit structures4.2.2. Specialist Ground Operator UnitIn this organizational unit, there are two types of members.Ground Associates (GAs) are trained and certified toperform tasks associated with Conventional Dispatch andDistributed Piloting support for nominal aircraft. GroundPilots (GPs) are trained and certified to perform tasksassociated with Dedicated Piloting support for off-nominalaircraft. There would be many more GAs than GPs in theseunits.Each GA generally serves multiple flights from pre-flightplanning to gate arrival. However, if/when one of theseflights encounters an off-nominal condition that requiresdedicated support, that aircraft is handed off to a GPidentified by a supervisor. Prior to the handoff, the GPmay be on standby or performing collateral duties andwould need a handoff briefing from the GA who wasserving the off-nominal aircraft. The GP provides one-onone support to the off-nominal aircraft. The GA maintainsgeneral situational awareness of the off-nominal flight incase the GP requires dispatch support or any other AOCsupport. After the off-nominal situation is satisfactorilyresolved, the GP returns the aircraft (if it has not alreadylanded) back to the GA.4.2.3. Harbor PilotA harbor pilot is a type of ground operator serving as amember of a hybrid unit or a specialist unit (or any othertype of ground operator unit). The function of a harborpilot is similar to current practice in maritime operations.For example, there could be a harbor pilot withcomprehensive knowledge of the metroplex airspacearound the New York City area airports. Each harbor pilotprovides distributed piloting support to multiple nominalaircraft as they climb and descend through a complexterminal area airspace. This could reduce the workload ofother positions in the ground operator units, enabling eachposition to support more aircraft.In SPO, the captain (in the cockpit) and ground operators(in an operations support center), working as a team, willinteract with advanced automation tools (located in thecockpit and at a ground station) to maintain flight safetyand efficiency. Some of the simpler functions currentlyperformed by a human pilot in a two-person cockpit, suchas reading checklists and conducting cross-checks, are goodcandidates for automation, although such systems will haveto possess some of the same characteristics as the operatorthey are replacing. Highly complex functions, such asformulating options to address challenging off-nominalflight conditions, are likely best suited to human cognitiongiven the current state of automation sophistication andreliability. Other functions could be performed by humansassisted by various levels of automation; some preliminaryrecommendations are reported in [8]. Higher levels ofautomation will generally require fewer human groundoperators to service a given fleet of aircraft. It is likely thatthere will be a progression, along the SPO implementationtimeline, from a larger ground operator complement usinglower levels of automation to a smaller ground operatorcomplement using higher levels of automation.Figure 6 is a notional representation of the relationshipbetween the level of automation and the total number ofoperators required to support a fleet of aircraft at a givenmoment. In conventional operations, each aircraft has twopilots, and each dispatcher supports around 20 aircraft,hence a fleet of 100 aircraft needs a total of about 205operators at a given moment. The cost of operationsdepends on the number and qualifications of the operatorsas well as the level of automation; therefore the cost ofconventional operations is notionally proportional to thedistance of the blue dot from the origin of the axes in Fig.6.The green oval represents the domain of various options forhuman-automation function allocations for SPO. Consideran implementation of SPO, indicated by “A” in Fig. 6,where each first officer is replaced by a ground operator.Hence the total number of operators remains the same, anda higher level of automation/equipage (e.g., air-groundvoice/data links, ground pilot stations) is required. Thisinstantiation of SPO has little merit because itsimplementation cost would likely not provide any savingsrelative to the baseline of conventional operations. Nowconsider an implementation of SPO, indicated by “B” inFig. 6, where each first officer is effectively replaced byhighly advanced cockpit automation (electronic pilot5
associate). The total number of operators is essentially cutin half, relative to the baseline of conventional operations.However, the cost to build such highly sophisticatedautomation would likely be very high and could result ineither a cost advantage or disadvantage over conventionaloperations (or might simply be a wash as indicated in Fig.6). A cost-effective solution is indicated by “C” in Fig. 6.Relative to conventional operations, it requires significantlyfewer operators and significantly more automation, butmuch less automation than option “B”. Noting that thedistance from the axes origin is a proxy for cost, it can beseen that the overall operations cost for option “C” is lowerthan that of conventional operations (indicated by the arc inFig. 6).Figure 6. Options space for implementation of SPOThe development of an SPO ConOps requires anexploration of the options space outlined above, with thegoal of identifying an SPO implementation that hascharacteristics similar to option “C” in Fig. 6. For a pointof interest in the options space, a key question is: what arethe requirements to implement this design of SPO at thesame level of safety as conventional operations?5.2. Cockpit Automation RequirementsA key requirement for SPO implementation is advancedautomation [9] that provides onboard support functions at alevel well beyond what is currently available in moderncommercial aircraft. While it may be tempting to simplyautomate as many of the current pilot functions as possible,distancing the captain from the flight/mission could erodesituation awareness (SA) and cognitive readiness. Overautomation would increase the likelihood of human errorand thus handicap the captain. Therefore, there may befunctions and tasks that could be automated from atechnological standpoint, but should not be automated inorder to maintain the captain’s SA, engagement, and skillretention.Some of the cockpit automation capabilities required forSPO already exist, e.g., nearly all modern aircraft can fly apreprogrammed route and land with little or no human aid.However, there are two important automation capabilitiesthat require significant advancement: (i) interaction andtask exchange, and, (ii) pilot health monitoring.5.2.1. Interaction and Task ExchangeThe capability development required here is to make theautomation more of a team player, rather than a silent andsubservient workhorse. This requires changes in the waythe automation interacts with the human, rather than whattasks it performs. For example, cockpit automation needsto clearly inform the captain about what it is doing, and toconfirm important parameters (e.g., altitude settings). Inresponse to a command from the captain, the automationmust repeat the command for error-checking, inform thecaptain that it is executing the command, and notify thecaptain when it is done. In short, the automation mustfollow current best practices for human-to-human CRM.The automation will be called upon to assist the captain indeclarative, retrospective, and prospective memory items.Required tasks of the automation may include checklists,task reminders, challenge-and-response protocols, andrecall of information or instructions provided by humanactors such as ATC personnel or ground operators. Butthese tasks cannot be rigidly prescribed. The human bringscertain unique capabilities to the cockpit as does theautomation. Both types of capabilities are required whenperforming basic interconnected tasks such as: Aviate,Navigate, and Communicate. It may be detrimental toassign one task (e.g., Aviate) entirely to the captain andleave the others entirely to automation. It is also highlyunlikely that the level of automation assistance wouldremain constant for the entire mission; for example, thelevel of automation will change in the Aviate task,depending on whether the captain is manually flying orbeing assisted in some way by the automation.The unique capabilities of the human and the automationmay be required at different times. The captain and theautomation have to be able to hand tasks back and forthbetween each other in a simple, quick, reliable, and wellunderstood fashion. This reallocation of tasks betweenthem (or between the captain, automation and the groundoperator) will likely be required in off-nominal or uniquesituations. In these times, workload on the human isalready high, and if the captain has to “hand off” theaircraft to the automation in order to deal with a navigationor systems problem, he/she must be able to do so quicklyand with full confidence. Similarly, if the automation hasto hand control back to the captain because it is reaching itslimitations, it must inform the pilot ahead of time andprovide SA information to the pilot about why the hand offhas become necessary (e.g., with what aspects theautomation is having difficulty, or is unable to perform.)6
5.2.2. Pilot Health MonitoringThe second automation capability that requiresdevelopment is the monitoring of the captain’sphysiological and behavioral state. This health monitoringserves two purposes: assessing the capacity of the captain,and catching mistakes made by the captain. In multi-crewflight decks, the crewmembers monitor each other. It isunlikely that automation will advance to the full monitoringcapability of a human crewmember in the timeframe ofSPO implementation, but there are many important healthfactors that could be monitored by the automation.Physiological sensors can assess health factors rangingfrom simple heart rate variability and pulse oxygen levelsto more elaborate measures such as electro-encephalograms(EEG) and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS).The challenge here is to make the measurements as nonintrusive and comfortable as possible – the idea of wiringthe body with multiple sensors is highly undesirable forhuman acceptance. Still, technology continues to advancein remote sensing capability so that no physiologicalmeasurement should be ruled out at this point. Thesemeasurements would provide a primary basis for assessingwhether the pilot is healthy and responsive.Behavioral measures are also important. Monitoring thecaptain’s actions with regard to instrument and inceptorcontrol, communications, and scan patterns is criticallyimportant to detect piloting errors and to make assessmentsof cognitive capability. Prescriptive assessments, wherethe human’s behavior is compared to what he/she should bedoing at any particular time or af
principal human operators, the automation tools used by the humans, and the operating procedures for human-human and human-automation interactions. This ConOps is being constructed using insights gained from a variety of sources International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace (HCI-Aero 2014) July 30 - August 1, 2014
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
10 tips och tricks för att lyckas med ert sap-projekt 20 SAPSANYTT 2/2015 De flesta projektledare känner säkert till Cobb’s paradox. Martin Cobb verkade som CIO för sekretariatet för Treasury Board of Canada 1995 då han ställde frågan
service i Norge och Finland drivs inom ramen för ett enskilt företag (NRK. 1 och Yleisradio), fin ns det i Sverige tre: Ett för tv (Sveriges Television , SVT ), ett för radio (Sveriges Radio , SR ) och ett för utbildnings program (Sveriges Utbildningsradio, UR, vilket till följd av sin begränsade storlek inte återfinns bland de 25 största
Hotell För hotell anges de tre klasserna A/B, C och D. Det betyder att den "normala" standarden C är acceptabel men att motiven för en högre standard är starka. Ljudklass C motsvarar de tidigare normkraven för hotell, ljudklass A/B motsvarar kraven för moderna hotell med hög standard och ljudklass D kan användas vid
LÄS NOGGRANT FÖLJANDE VILLKOR FÖR APPLE DEVELOPER PROGRAM LICENCE . Apple Developer Program License Agreement Syfte Du vill använda Apple-mjukvara (enligt definitionen nedan) för att utveckla en eller flera Applikationer (enligt definitionen nedan) för Apple-märkta produkter. . Applikationer som utvecklas för iOS-produkter, Apple .
Question 12 In your view, are there other issues that should be dealt with in conceptual framework for public accounts? If so, which issues? Terms followed by an asterisk (*) are defined in the glossary annexed to the conceptual framework. The commentary inserted in the text of the conceptual framework is highlighted in blue.
Marco Conceptual), párrafos FC0.10 a FC0.17 (enfoque y alcance al desarrollar el Marco Conceptual de 2018 y párrafos FC0.27 y FC0.28 (transición al Marco Conceptual de 2018)] El . Marco Conceptual para la Información Financiera (Marco Conceptual) describe el objetivo y los conceptos que se utilizan de la información financiera con .
Forecast Pilot Supply & Demand. 26 UND U.S. Airline Pilot Supply Forecast (2016) predicts cumulative pilot shortage of 14,000 by 2026. Boeing Pilot Outlook (2017) projects worldwide growth in pilot demand, with 117,000 pilots needed in North America by 2036. CAE Airline Pilot Demand Outlook (2017) indicates 85,000 new
