Correction & Review History
A complete, reverse-chronological record of corrections and review changes. For how to report an error and our triage process, see the Corrections Policy.
| Date | Calculator / Page | Issue | Resolution | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 21, 2026 | Crosswind Calculator (/calculators/crosswind) | When the wind was behind the runway, the gust row was labelled “Headwind (gust)” although it was a tailwind value; the runway error message implied headings such as 270 were accepted. | The gust row now reads Headwind or Tailwind according to sign, the runway message asks for a runway number 01–36, and the demonstrated-component field rejects zero or negative entries. No formula changed. | Major |
| Oct 21, 2026 | Density Altitude Calculator (/calculators/density-altitude); Methodology and Source Register entries | The formula notes described the humidity path as the “ICAO method” and cited Bolton (1980), but the calculator uses a Magnus-type vapor-pressure approximation followed by the same 120-ft-per-°C rule. Temperatures entered in °F above 60 °F were wrongly rejected as out of range, and typing in an input field lost keyboard focus after the first character. | Relabelled both calculation paths as approximations, replaced the Bolton citation for this tool with an accurate Magnus-type description, added a note that the 120 rule can read a few hundred feet higher than an exact air-density calculation on hot days, range-checked temperatures in °C regardless of entry unit, and fixed keyboard focus. No formula changed. | Major |
| Oct 21, 2026 | Fuel Burn Calculator (/calculators/fuel-burn) | Input validation gaps: an empty reserve-time field or an empty custom fuel weight produced “NaN” in the results, and a negative taxi, climb, or contingency entry was accepted and reduced the total (e.g. taxi −20 gave a total of −4.4 gal). The page also claimed Imperial-gallon support that the tool does not offer, and the groundspeed field showed no unit. | Added validation with visible error messages (reserve required and ≥ 0; taxi, climb, and contingency ≥ 0 when entered; custom fuel weight required and > 0; flight time not negative), removed the Imperial-gallon claim, labelled the groundspeed unit, and expanded the formula display to show the subtotal and that contingency is applied to a subtotal that includes reserve. No formula changed; worked example re-checked against an independent calculation (15.6 gal / 93.6 lb). | Critical |
| Oct 21, 2026 | Crosswind Calculator (/calculators/crosswind); article /blog/crosswind-landings; Worked Examples scenario 4 (/worked-examples) | Text used “maximum demonstrated crosswind” loosely, stated it was not a legal limit without qualification, and suggested pilots could exceed it with skill, blurring the demonstrated component, actual POH/AFM limitations, instructor/school limits, and personal minimums. The article title (“Crosswind Landings: How to Calculate Your Limits and Stay Safe”) implied the calculator determines safe limits. | Reworded to “demonstrated crosswind component,” separated the four kinds of limit, stated that a demonstrated component alone does not make a landing safe or permitted and that the calculator only computes components, marked example aircraft figures as hypothetical, and retitled the article “Crosswind Landings: Components, Aircraft Guidance, and Personal Minimums” (URL unchanged). No formula or calculation logic changed. | Major |
| Oct 21, 2026 | Density Altitude Calculator (/calculators/density-altitude); article /blog/understanding-density-altitude; Worked Examples scenario 1 (/worked-examples) | Educational text told readers to read POH takeoff and climb charts at the calculated density altitude (e.g. “the POH charts must be read at that 9,700-foot figure, not at 6,000 ft”) and said cool weather “will match or beat the book numbers.” Many charts are entered with pressure altitude and OAT, so this could double-count temperature; the book-performance statement was an unconditional guarantee. One example also stated a result of “near −0 ft” where the documented method gives about −97 ft. | Replaced with guidance to use the inputs and procedure specified by the aircraft’s current POH/AFM chart (often pressure altitude and OAT; density altitude only if the chart calls for it), stated that the educational result does not establish takeoff distance, climb capability, or operational suitability, made the cool-weather statement conditional, corrected the example to −97 ft, and added an FAA PHAK (FAA-H-8083-25C) Chapter 11 source note. No formula or calculation logic changed; example arithmetic re-checked against the calculator. | Major |