Brunno Winnubst DPE Checkride Gouges
Designated Pilot Examiner
Preparing for an FAA checkride with Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) Brunno Winnubst? GougeHub has a first-hand Brunno Winnubst checkride gouge report from a pilot who tested in Oregon. Read oral exam questions, flight test patterns, and examiner insights.
↓ View 1 available gouge reportOral Emphasis
Based on pilot reports, Brunno places significant emphasis on lost communication scenarios during the oral portion of the IFR checkride. Expect to work through the regulatory and practical sides of what you'd do if you lost comms at various points during an IFR flight. He also scrutinizes your navigation log — not just that you filled one out, but that you understand the numbers and reasoning behind it.
Common Questions
- Detailed walkthroughs of lost communication procedures — what you'd do, when, and why, referencing the appropriate regulations and decision-making logic.
- Questions tied directly to your nav log: he may ask you to explain or defend specific entries, so make sure you can talk through each element confidently rather than just copying numbers from a plotter or app.
Practical Focus
Pilots reported flying a route that incorporated multiple approaches. It's worth reviewing the specific multi-approach sequence he may use and being comfortable with transitions between approaches, including holds and course reversals as needed. The flight portion is practical and scenario-driven rather than a simple checklist of maneuvers.
Examiner Style
Reports suggest Brunno is straightforward and engaged. He expects you to know your material and be able to discuss it — not just recite memorized answers. The oral has a conversational quality but he won't let vague or incomplete answers slide. Come prepared to think through scenarios rather than just recall facts.
What Surprised Pilots
- The depth of questioning on lost comms — pilots noted it went beyond the basics and into nuanced, scenario-specific territory that required genuine understanding of the regulations and practical decision-making.
- The nav log review was more thorough than some pilots expected. If you're used to glossing over flight planning details, this examiner will notice.
Examiner Patterns
Preliminary insight — based on 1 report
- Oral style: 1 pilot reported the examiner mixed recall and scenario questions
- Navigation tools: 1 pilot reported the examiner accepted EFB use
- Logbook review: 1 pilot reported the examiner cross-checked total hours
- Density altitude: 1 pilot reported the examiner required a density altitude calculation
- Go/no-go discussion: 1 pilot reported the examiner discussed go/no-go as part of a scenario
- Equipment failure simulated: 1 pilot reported the examiner simulated a radio failure
- Preflight briefing: 1 pilot reported the examiner gave a full preflight briefing
Based on self-reported pilot submissions. Data methodology
Ratings & Checkride Types
- IFR (Instrument Rating)
FAA Designee Information
FAA Oversight Office: Portland FSDO
Status: Active Designee
- Private Pilot Examiner: Airplane Multi-Engine Land, Airplane Single Engine Land
- Flight Instructor Examiner: Airplane Multi-Engine, Airplane Single Engine
- Commercial & Instrument Rating Examiner: Airplane Single Engine Land, Airplane Multi-Engine Land
Source: FAA Designee Management System · Verify on FAA.gov →
Transparency Disclaimer: This page summarizes patterns reported by applicants. It is not an endorsement, prediction, or guarantee of checkride outcome. Every checkride varies based on the applicant and circumstances.