Dave Leonard DPE Checkride Gouges – San Diego Area
This summary is based on multiple recent gouges submitted by applicants who took checkrides with Dave Leonard in the San Diego area. While every checkride varies, consistent patterns emerge.
Oral Exam Emphasis
Across multiple reports, candidates noted emphasis on FAR interpretation and regulatory knowledge over rote memorization. Endorsements received detailed examination, with particular attention to proper wording and required elements from FAR 61.65. Logbook documentation was scrutinized thoroughly for correct signatures, dates, and endorsement language. Applicants reported being expected to reference FARs directly rather than recite from memory. The examiner's background as an aviation attorney was evident in detailed regulatory discussions.
Commonly Repeated Questions
- Endorsement requirements for various ratings and operations, with references to FAR 61.65
- "Which endorsements would a student need for [specific rating or operation]?"
- Interpretation of specific FARs rather than memorization
- Requirements for Instrument Proficiency Checks versus Flight Reviews
- Logging requirements for ground and flight training
- Currency requirements and how they apply to different scenarios
- PAVE, 5 P's, and DECIDE model application
- Lost communications procedures in detail
Teaching Expectations (CFI/CFII)
For instructor checkrides, candidates reported scenario-based FOI discussions rather than formal teaching presentations. Questions focused on practical application such as handling student learning challenges. Teaching assignments commonly included weight and balance at private pilot level and slow flight at commercial level. The power curve was specifically mentioned as an expected component when teaching slow flight. Applicants were expected to teach using current aircraft POH with correct model numbers. Ownership of mistakes and professional demeanor were emphasized over perfection.
Areas Candidates Were Weakest
Several applicants noted difficulty with ensuring all endorsements contained precise regulatory language. Logbook entries with incorrect dates or improper regulation citations were criticized. Some candidates struggled with teaching assigned topics without waiting for examiner feedback to know when to stop. Aircraft preflight documentation issues were noted, particularly regarding data plate locations and required placards. Weight and balance teaching with incorrect POH versions caused concern.
Examiner Demeanor
Candidates described a thorough and detail-oriented approach. The examiner values professionalism and expects applicants to reference materials rather than guess. Multiple applicants noted appreciation for organized presentation of documents with tabs and clear organization. Laptop use is permitted for looking up regulations and advisory circulars during the oral. The examiner does not provide excessive feedback during teaching scenarios. Candidates reported that admitting mistakes honestly was viewed more favorably than attempting to defend errors.
Flight Test Patterns
For CFI checkrides, candidates reported teaching taxi procedures including runway incursion avoidance. The examiner adopted various student roles ranging from first lesson through commercial student. During maneuvers, applicants were asked to evaluate whether the examiner's demonstration met ACS standards. Preflight instruction was divided between teaching mode and normal preflight. Soft field and short field techniques were tested. Landing within specified distances was expected with applicants required to self-evaluate performance against standards.
Aircraft & Ratings
- CFI Initial, CFII, Private Pilot
- Cessna 172 (multiple variants including 172L, 172N)
- Gillespie Field (KSEE), Montgomery-Gibbs Executive (KMYF), Carlsbad (KCRQ)
- Practice areas: Ramona, east of Gillespie
Transparency Disclaimer: This page summarizes patterns reported by applicants. It is not an endorsement, prediction, or guarantee of outcome.
Access Full Gouges
Sample Gouge Preview
CFI Initial Checkride with Dave Leonard - March 2025
Day 1 - Oral Examination (6 hours):
The checkride started with the standard three outcomes briefing. We then moved into Fundamentals of Instruction, which was conversational rather than requiring formal teaching. Dave asked scenario-based questions like "If a student is doing XYZ, how might you handle the situation?" About 90% of this was logic-based about being a good instructor and effective human being. The remaining 10% covered specific FOI topics including Maslow's hierarchy of needs, building blocks of learning, and factors that prevent learning.
Airplane Documents and Airworthiness:
This section was straightforward. Dave is an aviation attorney, so he had me read FARs and interpret them. It was more of a logic test than a memory test. We then went into endorsements in detail. I built a spreadsheet using FAR 61-65 for all endorsements that could be used for each rating, highlighting which ones were required and when. I referenced this sheet for each question he asked, such as which endorsements someone would need for a private pilot license or add-on ratings.
Teaching Assignments:
Dave assigned me to teach weight and balance at a private pilot level and slow flight at a commercial level. He was upset that I taught weight and balance using an example POH for a 172L when we were supposed to be flying a 172N. I made a mistake here because I thought I had printed the 172N POH. Dave wants to see that you own up to your mistakes and that you're honest, not that you're perfect.
For slow flight, I was prepared because someone told me they had received this assignment five years ago and failed for not teaching the power curve. I received the same assignment. If I was betting, I would bet you will also be assigned slow flight. Read the Airplane Flying Handbook section on slow flight thoroughly. Teach the power curve. You will be fine. Use the ACS and make sure you're hitting all the points including purpose and common errors.
Day 2 - Preflight and Flight:
Coming out to the airplane for preflight, Dave had me do half of the preflight while teaching, then the second half was a quick preflight as if I was solo. He questioned a FAR regarding the data plate location, which actually was in the correct place. Don't argue with Dave. Be conservative. Your goal isn't to be right, your goal is to pass the checkride. I told him we couldn't fly because he was obviously not satisfied with where the Part 45 data plate was located, and we discontinued. I also did not have enough information at the time to definitively say it was in the correct place.
Day 4 - Continuation:
We got to the plane and I did preflight and said we were good to go. He pointed inside the cowling and asked "Can we fly like this?" referring to a missing screw. The FSDO's current stance is that any missing screw grounds the plane, so I said I could get it fixed in five minutes. I went to maintenance and they had it fixed quickly.
During startup and taxi, Dave did the classic DPE move of not wearing his shoulder harness. I told him he needed to put it on. For the runway incursion portion, he said it would just be me explaining what I'm doing as I'm taxiing. Brief hotspots, brief your taxi route, don't skip steps, look both ways at all intersections, talk through everything.
In-Flight Teaching:
Dave performed a soft field takeoff and wanted me to tell him if he was within ACS standards. Have the standards memorized for all maneuvers. He then wanted me to take him to a practice area and teach slow flight. He tried aiming us towards terrain and I told him to turn right to a specific heading. If you have practiced teaching friends to fly, this should be easy. Either way, pretend he is your friend that you're teaching. If at any point you're confused about what role he's playing, ask him. He switches between private pilot first lesson, last lesson, commercial student, etc.
He then did a landing pretending to be an early private pilot student. We did a soft field landing that I taught. Everything seemed to be going well because he then did a soft field landing himself and showed me some techniques. Last we did a short field landing which I came about 10 feet short on my landing spot. I was disappointed and we went back to parking.
[Content continues with detailed flight test scenarios, specific examiner feedback, landing techniques, and post-flight debrief. Full gouge includes complete oral exam questions, teaching strategies, and examiner preferences.]
[Additional sections cover preflight procedures, in-flight teaching methods, maneuver standards, and professional tips for success.]
This is a preview of one gouge. Full gouge includes additional oral exam details, complete flight test scenarios, and specific techniques discussed.
Create Account to Read Full Gouges →