Add acronyms and message format to research document

[SoTi-AF]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Expanded glossary with seven aviation-related acronyms/codes: ALT, DEPA, DSTA, RWY, FOB, N-S, E-W.
  • Added an analysis section describing a "Prefix 28" message format and a sample 28-message line structure with component breakdown for clearer reference.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c66b216 and 513ad8c.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• research/36.md

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• research/36.md

---

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

This pull request expands research/36.md with new glossary entries (ALT, DEPA, DSTA, RWY, FOB, N-S, E-W) and adds an analysis section describing a "Prefix 28 Message Format" with a sample 28 message line structure.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation Expansion research/36.md	Added seven aviation-related glossary entries and a new "Prefix 28 Message Format" analysis section including a sample 28 message line format and field order.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

Suggested reviewers

• makrsmark

Poem

🐰 In a burrow of notes, I hop and cite,

ALT, DEPA, DSTA tucked in the light,
RWY, FOB, N‑S, E‑W all in a row,
A 28 message format now ready to show,
Hops of documentation—off we go! ✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately reflects the main changes: adding new acronyms and message format details to the research document (research/36.md).
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

research/36.md (1)

55-56: Clarify the . placeholder in the format string

In the format spec 28,.,DDMMMYY,..., the second field is represented as ., but all three examples show E in that position. Consider replacing . with an explicit placeholder like <type> or documenting what values this field can take, to avoid ambiguity.

🤖 Prompt for AI Agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

In `@research/36.md` around lines 55 - 56, The format line under "Prefix 28
Message Format" uses a cryptic '.' as the second field (currently shown as
"28,.,DDMMMYY,...") but the examples all use 'E'; update the spec to replace '.'
with an explicit placeholder (e.g., "<type>" or "<position-type>") and/or add a
short enumerated list of allowed values (for example: E, N, etc.) and their
meanings so readers can see that the second field in the
"28,.,DDMMMYY,HHMMSS,..." pattern is the message type/value shown as 'E' in
examples.

🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents

Verify each finding against the current code and only fix it if needed.

Inline comments:
In `@research/36.md`:
- Line 50: Fix the typo in the document text: change the phrase "E-W =
Longtitude POS" to "E-W = Longitude POS" so the word "Longtitude" is corrected
to "Longitude" wherever it appears (e.g., the line containing "E-W = Longtitude
POS" in research/36.md).

---

Nitpick comments:
In `@research/36.md`:
- Around line 55-56: The format line under "Prefix 28 Message Format" uses a
cryptic '.' as the second field (currently shown as "28,.,DDMMMYY,...") but the
examples all use 'E'; update the spec to replace '.' with an explicit
placeholder (e.g., "<type>" or "<position-type>") and/or add a short enumerated
list of allowed values (for example: E, N, etc.) and their meanings so readers
can see that the second field in the "28,.,DDMMMYY,HHMMSS,..." pattern is the
message type/value shown as 'E' in examples.

---

ℹ️ Review info

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8381b41 and c66b216.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• research/36.md