An FAA internal memo has surfaced showing the agency plans to smooth out the DPE shortage and resulting checkride backlog by getting more flight schools to run the tests themselves. In a memo sent either last May or July (dated 05/07/2025) Hardie DeGuzman, director of the General Aviation Safety Assurance, said the department, which oversees the nation’s Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs), needs to “shift our mindset” to “proactively support examining authority for eligible and qualified schools.” The memo says only 74 of 509 certificated flight schools have the authority to do their own testing for pilot certificates. “This low participation contributes to the strain on our designated pilot examiner (DPE) resources and extended waiting times for practical tests.”
DeGuzman said recent policy changes have reduced the amount of surveillance required to assess whether flight schools can qualify to do their own testing. “These changes make it easier—and more practical—for our offices to support the pilot schools who apply for examining authority,” he wrote. He said GASA has always had a restrictive policy regarding granting examining authority for flight schools but that has to change. DeGuzman said an information campaign aimed at both GASA employees and flight schools interested in doing their own testing will answer questions about the shift in policy and direction. “These changes make it easier—and more practical—for our offices to support the pilot schools who apply for examining authority,” the memo said.
We got medical relief in the form of Light Sport 1.0 and — now — 2.0 (MOSAIC) and well as Basic Med. We’re getting relief from FAR Part 23 requirements next summer when FAR Part 22 is enacted allowing ASTM standards to define aircraft standards for simpler airplanes. With this notion for relieving the DPE problem, that’s great, too.
NOW … if we could just get the FAA to relieve the standards of maintenance for certificated (FAR 23) airplanes being flown recreationally under MOSAIC. Allowing a condition inspection by an A&P to suffice for the annual requirement would greatly expand the number of people who could do that. There’s a mechanic shortage AND — in some parts of the Country — it’s acute. If said airplane needed to go back to full certificated status, an IA could do that.
Wha….? Seems like letting the fox guard the henhouse. Or Boeing being allowed to employ the 737MAX inspectors…..
What could *possibly* go wrong?
This sounds like a perfect recipe for severe issues.
IF ONLY, the huge wad of cash the FAA got to hire more FAA examiners instead of relying on DPE’s. On wait a second, that goes against the mindset “government is broken” and we must privatize functions. The whole purpose of DPEs is to help the FAA, not turn into a profit center for the few DPE’s that can hold a student pilot hostage with exorbitant fees.
Horrible idea. At a national average of over 60% failure rate on the primary checkride, the schools have proven unable to properly prepare students for checkrides. How can they possibly be entrusted with testing students.
The backlog would be tremendously lessoned if the failure rate was around 10% and retesting wasnt clogging up the DPE time slots.
I don’t know how this will work out. But at the moment, the wait time for a DPE, the outrageous fees, and the now length of the exams are just not working for the pilots needs. Granted, all my exams were years ago and all but two were with FAA, as in free. I much preferred them, as in free, but also they didn’t appear to be excessive. The FAA guys looked for what they wanted to see, several times cut me some honest slack when they could have technically busted me, and on my multi instructor actually taught me something I appreciated learning. Anyhow, my opinion.
And to continue with an opinion, I personally think the over 60% failure rate is not at all necessary. I can think of several check ride failures others had that are a result of the most minor and only technical errors on the part of the pilot. I think DPEs sometimes think that it is necessary on their part to show the FAA how firm they are in enforcing the most minor transgression. It doesn’t frequently show the overall capability of the applicant, and can frequently be seen as a minor technical ooops. It can usually be discussed to satisfaction or done again and then move on. Otherwise, it becomes another appointment with the DPE, several months sometimes, more examiner expense, and more aircraft expense. Where five minutes of discussion can satisfy the applicant’s correct knowledge of procedure. DPEs are usually selected on their long time experience and should be seeing pass or fail in the first few minutes. Waiting for gotchas to have a track record (you know he never passes anyone on their first attempt) should not be a track record of which to be proud. I speak from personal experience both as 60+ years as a pilot and 38 years as ATC. In both endeavors, I have at one time or another been given a second chance, and every time I felt was a correct and decent thing to have received, in no case “giving” me anything except a real world look at my performance. This though does date back many years in both case. My opinion.
This could be a good move if flight schools would modify and expand their curriculum somewhat–ie:
1) require 5 hours of tailwheel, ski or float time with at least 12 takeoffs and landings (with or without an instructor)
2) a DEMONSTRATED proficiency with ATC communications.
These added items would be requirements for a private level fixed wing.
Allow further certification up to but NOT including Commercial certification. I think rotary wing licensing would be doable as well.
I’m of multiple minds about this.
Yes, it opens up the possibility that some flight schools might pencil-whip their own students’ certifications. Diploma mills have existed in the academic world since Socrates, but you don’t see the likes of MIT or Harvard passing out diplomas without having subjected their students to some serious scrutiny. The hiring and insurance markets will quickly learn whose ticket isn’t worth a cup of day-old FBO coffee, and will act accordingly.
There is a lot to be said for having a single source of qualification criteria, but the federal gummit might not be the best source of that. Many vocational certifications are administered by industry associations who have a long history of advocacy and leadership, an thus no small amount of skin in the game.
To me, such a change boils down to granularity. I would be concerned if every soi-disant “flight school” could cobble together a couple of weeks of ground and flight training, and then award a pilot certificate without any sort of external oversight.
OTOH, anything administered by the federal government is going to be one-size-fits-none, slow, and thus less effective and more expensive. It appears that they can’t even standardize their date format …
Let’s see what, exactly, they come up with.
I’ve been part of several Flight Schools and all of them had an in-house DPE. Not one of the hundreds of check rides for any certificate or rating was ever “Pencil Whipped”. Actually, having the DPE directly involved in the ongoing Instructor’s Training created the best Flight Instructors I’ve ever known.
I do have First-Hand experience, Count me in Big on this approach.
I’m with you, Klaus. An in-house DPE helps. Involving the examiner in both flight and ground training creates a learning loop that keeps instructors sharp, supports student progress, and hopefully results in lower costs.
Yes, I think it’s a good move but would suggest that the DPE signing off a PPL would be from an associated or reasonably nearby flight training school. “In house” certification still leaves room for perceived prejudice and favouritism. Close that door and the loop is quite complete.