Jacob Hansen DPE Checkride Gouges
Designated Pilot Examiner • (Jacob Andrew Hansen)
Preparing for an FAA checkride with Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) Jacob Hansen? GougeHub has 2 first-hand Jacob Hansen checkride gouge reports from pilots who tested. Review oral exam questions, flight test patterns, and examiner insights for IFR checkrides.
↓ View 2 available gouge reportsTwo IFR reports are on file for Jacob Hansen. Both describe an examiner who keeps the oral grounded in practical scenarios rather than trick questions. One pilot called the experience solid on oral topics and steady through the flight sequence. The other found Hansen supportive from start to finish. Plan for a ride that covers the ACS thoroughly without trying to trip you up.
Lost comm procedures come up as a clear emphasis. One report points directly to that area, so review your expected route, altitude, and timing under a communication failure. Know how you would handle it on a real flight, not just on paper. Be ready to talk through your decisions calmly and back them up.
Personal minimums are the other named focus. Hansen wants to hear that you have set your own limits and can stand behind them. Think through ceilings, visibility, and conditions you would decline before you show up. Confidence here matters as much as the numbers themselves.
The oral covers comprehensive topics across the IFR ground area, according to both pilots. One report describes good scenario-based questions that tie ground knowledge to actual flying situations. The flight sequence follows the standard IFR tasks and runs smoothly under a supportive examiner. Neither report lists specific maneuvers or failure modes in detail, so treat the full ACS as fair game.
Both reports paint Hansen as fair and encouraging rather than adversarial. Come prepared on lost comm and personal minimums, since those are the areas pilots flagged most. Walk in ready to explain your thinking, and you should find the ride manageable. If you fly with Hansen soon, add your own notes so the next pilot knows more.
Examiner Patterns
Early reports (2) suggest
- Oral style: 1 of 2 applicants report the examiner walked through ACS task areas sequentially
- Density altitude: 1 of 2 applicants report the examiner did not cover density altitude
- Go/no-go discussion: 1 of 2 applicants report the examiner discussed go/no-go as part of a scenario
- Equipment failure simulated: 1 of 2 applicants report the examiner did not simulate an equipment failure
- Preflight briefing: 1 of 2 applicants report the examiner gave a full preflight briefing
- When ACS standard not met: 1 of 2 applicants report the examiner noted the deviation and continued
Based on self-reported pilot submissions. Data methodology
Ratings & Checkride Types
- IFR (Instrument Rating)
FAA Designee Information
FAA Oversight Office: Scottsdale FSDO
Status: Active Designee
- Private Pilot Examiner: Airplane Single Engine Land, Airplane Multi-Engine Land
- Commercial & Instrument Rating Examiner: Airplane Single Engine Land, Airplane Multi-Engine Land
- ATPE: Airplane Single Engine Land, Airplane Multi-Engine Land
- Flight Instructor Examiner: Airplane Single Engine, Airplane Multi-Engine
- Flight Instructor Examiner — Instrument: Airplane Single Engine, Airplane Multi-Engine
Source: FAA Designee Management System · Verify on FAA.gov →
Other DPEs in Arizona
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.