Corrections Policy
Accuracy is the whole point of this site. If something is wrong, we want to know — and we want to fix it in the open.
How to report an error
Use our Contact page to report any calculator that returns an incorrect result or any citation that looks out of date. To help us reproduce and fix the issue quickly, please include:
- Which calculator or page is affected
- The exact input values you used
- The result you received and the result you expected
- The source (POH page, regulation, textbook) you are comparing against, if you have one
What happens next
Acknowledge
We confirm we received your report, usually within a couple of business days.
Investigate
We reproduce the calculation, compare it to the authoritative source, and determine whether a change is needed.
Fix or explain
If it is an error, we fix it and log it below. If the tool is actually correct, we explain why — often it is a difference in assumptions.
Severity classification
Critical
A safety-affecting formula or logic error that could produce a materially wrong result.
Major
An incorrect source citation or a misleading limitation/assumption.
Minor
A typo, formatting issue, or non-functional UI problem.
Correction log
| Date | Calculator Affected | Issue | Resolution | Severity | Reporter |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |