I still don’t know whether we’re taking about aviation specific (like IAF or PIC), EASA specific (like NCC or CRD) or just common expressions (like IANAL or IIRC). I would have contributed yesterday had I known. We use quite a few of them. I think aviation/ EASA specific are more likely but one never knows.
Noe, you can also drag a highlighted text between tabs (or behind the last one), a new tab will open and you will get whatever would have appeared after entering what you dragged into the address field or whatever they call it. Or onto a tab in which case it’ll do the same thing but in the tab onto which you dropped it.
I_Love_Flying wrote:
When you hover over the avionics abbreviations, the full text appears.
Not that it helps you much. If you know what VHF Omnidirectional Range is, then you surely know VOR. It’s an old idea, there is even abbr tag in HTML (the full text is in an attributed called title; there used to be acronym tag as well). It’s only that quite a lot of websites simply don’t bother. Some forums have this automated but it sometimes leads to wrong text being assigned (IIRC I saw it couple of times used for airport codes).
Martin wrote:
Noe, you can also drag a highlighted text between tabs (or behind the last one), a new tab will open and you will get whatever would have appeared after entering what you dragged into the address field or whatever they call it. Or onto a tab in which case it’ll do the same thing but in the tab onto which you dropped it.
Thanks, I didn’t know of that one.
It is about aviation abbreviations. Sometimes looking lists of abbreviations or searching the internet for explanations don’t help. It is very annoying. If you want to be understood widely please avoid them, at least uncommon ones or explain what they are. If this is not important for you then go ahead and write them plenty. If the mindset is just hovering around aviation maybe it easy to understand all of these abbreviations. But for general aviation where people have also other things to do…
I’d say it’s about all 
for a non-native, some are quite hard to understand or infer and this greatly reduces readability
Even for those I know I find it reduces my reading speed quite a bit
Didn’t this forum originally have a glossary? Or is that only another too rosy memory of a long forgotten youth?
Well, what keeps you from adding one? Or even two – one for aviation-related terms and another, less formal, for generalisms like “AFAICT” or “ROFL”.
I do like the idea of referring to such a glossary automatically when the cursor hovers over a defined term or abbreviation; but the implementation might be a bit tricky. We do not want to get IFR explained when hovering over bifrequency, for a poor example. A nice challenge for David, perhaps ;) ?
We could make up our own.
AFAICT – As far as I can throw (him), as in “I trust him AFAICT”.
ROFL – Read Only Flight Logger – an aviation term.
SCNR
[Sorry, chaps, no regrets]
PCL?
Pilot Controlled Lighting
