Well, of course you can.

I believe the question really is, "is it a defensible/allowable/usable abbreviation?"

Defensible? To whom? Generally speaking, if you have not seen the abbreviation before you use it you are treading on the thin ice that is also trodden upon by innovators of neologisms. This is not for the weak of heart.

Allowable? By whom? If it's not in a dictionary it's probably not going to be welcomed with open arms by your reader unless the abbreviation is very useful.

Usable? Of course it's usable. But it may be of only marginal, or even negative, utility.

There is little need for abbreviations in writing meant to be read, and no need at all for abbreviations that are, N.B., obscure.

Well, of course you can. Dropping vowels is as much an acceptable way of forming abbreviations as dropping consonants.

I believe your question really is more, "Is this a way to create defensible/allowable/usable abbreviations?"

Defensible? To whom? Generally speaking, if you have not seen the abbreviation before you use it you are treading on the thin ice that is also trodden upon by innovators of neologisms. This is not for the weak of heart.

Allowable? By whom? If it's not in a dictionary it's probably not going to be welcomed with open arms by your reader unless the abbreviation is very useful and obvious in meaning. Remember that the purpose of an abbreviation is to communicate clearly using less letters.

Usable? Of course it's usable. But it may be of only marginal (or even negative) utility if the abbreviation obscures meaning.

There is little need for abbreviations in writing meant to be read, and there is no need at all for abbreviations that are, N.B., obscure.