Editorial, Testing & Corrections Policy

PilotDesk is a supplemental aviation learning and calculation resource. The standard is not to sound authoritative; it is to be technically traceable. Every important claim should be tied to a primary source, a stated physical model, a clearly identified approximation, or approved aircraft data.

1. Publisher and reviewer transparency

Guides are published collectively under the PilotDesk name. Individual author names, instructor certificates, flight hours, designated examiner status, and outside technical review are not claimed unless a page explicitly identifies them. The organization-level byline is not evidence that a CFI, DPE, FAA office, or publisher named in a source endorsed the page.

Automated formula tests can catch regressions in code and selected example values. They cannot establish that every article is complete, current, independently reviewed, or appropriate for a particular aircraft. Use the linked controlling publication and aircraft-specific approved data when the answer matters to a flight.

2. Primary sources come first

FAA regulations, the Aeronautical Information Manual, current FAA handbooks, Advisory Circulars, Aviation Weather Center products, FAA aeronautical data, and current aircraft POH/AFM material are preferred over blogs, forums, secondary summaries, or unsourced rules of thumb. Where a manufacturer or regulator publishes controlling information, that source governs.

See Sources & Methods for the core references used across PilotDesk.

3. Physics before memorization

When a relationship can be explained from first principles, PilotDesk should show the underlying physics or geometry instead of asking the reader to memorize a number with no context. For example, load factor in a coordinated level turn follows from resolving lift into vertical and horizontal components; accelerated stall speed follows from the square-root relationship between required lift coefficient and load factor; pivotal altitude can be reduced to h = V²/g before unit conversion produces the familiar knots-and-feet constant.

4. Assumptions must be visible

An equation is only correct inside its assumptions. Articles should identify conditions such as coordinated flight, constant altitude, steady state, incompressible flow, dry air, standard atmosphere, or a specific aircraft configuration whenever those assumptions materially affect the result. If a relationship is valid only as an approximation, the approximation is labeled where it appears—not buried in a disclaimer.

5. Exact, approximate, empirical, and aircraft-specific are different categories

PilotDesk distinguishes among four kinds of information:

• Exact relationships derived from the stated model, such as moment = weight × arm.
• Model-based calculations whose result depends on stated assumptions, such as an ISA atmosphere calculation.
• Rules of thumb such as groundspeed × 5 for a 3° descent or the 120 ft/°C density-altitude shortcut.
• Aircraft-specific performance and limitations that must come from the applicable POH/AFM, approved data, or operator procedure.

Those categories should never be blended together as though they carry the same authority.

6. AI is not a technical source

AI tools may assist with drafting, code, editing, or test generation, but an AI-generated statement is not accepted as evidence. Technical claims that matter to flight training, aircraft performance, weather interpretation, regulations, or aerodynamics are checked against primary material or a derivation that can be independently inspected. If a claim cannot be verified, it should be removed, qualified, or explicitly identified as uncertain.

7. Writing style

PilotDesk articles should read like good technical instruction: direct, disciplined, and specific. The site avoids filler introductions, repetitive “this tool helps you” language, inflated claims, invented expertise, and keyword repetition written for search engines rather than pilots. Definitions should come before conclusions. Important distinctions should be explicit. Examples should use realistic units and show enough arithmetic to be audited.

8. Calculator review

Calculator formulas are kept in testable source files. Representative inputs and expected outputs are checked automatically before production changes are accepted. Automated checks also verify generated pages, links, structured data, metadata, and other site wiring. For important calculations, the formula or method should be inspectable from the page or linked technical explanation.

9. Operational boundaries

PilotDesk calculators and guides are for education, planning support, and cross-checking. They do not replace current approved aircraft data, official weather, charts, procedures, regulations, NOTAMs, or operator guidance. Aircraft-specific limitations, loading envelopes, performance tables, and procedures take priority over any generic calculation on this site.

10. Corrections

If a formula, explanation, source note, link, or result appears wrong, outdated, or misleading, users can report it. Safety-related corrections receive priority. Confirmed problems should be corrected in the source and, where practical, covered by a regression test so the same error cannot silently return.

11. Transparency and independence

PilotDesk maintains a public code repository so changes and test workflows can be inspected independently: PilotDesk on GitHub ↗. Advertising may support the site, but it does not determine formulas, source selection, technical conclusions, or whether a correction is accepted.

Review date

Policy reviewed September 23, 2026. This review checked the cited IFR alternate and fuel provisions against the current eCFR and the FAA instrument-procedures reference. FAA publications, regulations, aircraft documents, and web services can change; the current controlling source remains authoritative.