We have had a few threads go off the rails due to somebody posting complicated abbreviations and acronyms which almost nobody has heard of.
From now on, please when you post one of these, make it into a live link which points to a decent explanation somewhere.
If you use such an acronym in the thread title, then expand it – like this:
I don’t like editing posts for meaning, and only very rarely delete stuff entirely. But next time somebody posts something obscure I might just delete it, because it will lead to yet another argument over abbreviations, and an unreadable thread.
Common GA acronyms e.g. VOR are OK to use because everybody with a PPL will know what it is. But lately we have had a lot of stuff from currently trendy behavioural models etc etc and almost nobody recognises those.
It’s aviations favorite thing and it drives me mad. Sometimes I think it’s just some misguided effort to militarize, sound important and try to dazzle with science.
Recently, and slightly different, as we are re-doing the panel on my plane, there’s a warning light that says T&B. Nobody could figure out hat the hell it meant. Until some smart avionics guy finally said “it probably means Turn and Bank”. Makes sense – it’s a warning light that goes on when the Turn and Bank malfunctions or loses power, but boy…
ICAO airfield codes are one of my pet hates.
That is why the Trips and Airports section says:
One needs to use names to prevent irritating a lot of people, and one needs to use ICAO codes to prevent ambiguity.
Peter wrote:
Common GA acronyms e.g. VOR are OK to use because everybody with a PPL will know what it is
Can someone explain what these acronyms are:
GA
VOR
OK
PPL ?
…just kidding but couldn’t resist 
And when encountering these acronyms I select the text and try to right click → Search with but right click menu here on EuroGA has been replaced by “Quote”.
A bit annoying….
I think the number of people who want to write something and perhaps quote someone vastly exceeds those who need the right-click-search feature. In fact I didn’t know that existed until now 
Also a google search usually turns up multiple meanings, these days…
The reason I laid down the requirement in this thread is to make people think a bit before they use some obscure acronym. I know that all intelligent people will recognise when they are about to use an obscure acronym. I also know that we have 1 or 2 individuals who ritually complain about them, and this messes up the thread in question.
And if an acronym is mis-spelt (like the TREATS one the other day) then almost nobody can work it out. And that thread turned out to be completely and utterly useless educationally, given that nobody ever came back and explained what it was really about.
Sometimes I lose the will to live…
Peter wrote:
I think the number of people who want to write something and perhaps quote someone vastly exceeds those who need the right-click-search feature. In fact I didn’t know that existed until now
Well, I second Michael’s opinion. The quote-function is good, but it would be even better if the right-click menue would still be accessible, as I am using it (on other forums, here i would use it) not only for abbreviations, but to look for translations, too. Or if I want to look up places in google maps or search for pictures of aircraft, information about avionics or stuff like this.
I will not reply to the essence, to avoid being one or other of the one or two ritualists . Only two remarks on the sideline:
Peter wrote:
And that thread turned out to be completely and utterly useless educationally, given that nobody ever came back and explained what it was really about.
I think you’re being unfair. There were several postings giving an overview of what it was about.
