Kevin Rothfus DPE Checkride Gouges
Designated Pilot Examiner • (Kevin Walter Rothfus) • Location coming soon
↓ View 2 available gouge reportsOral Emphasis
Rothfus digs into regulatory knowledge and expects you to know where things live in FAA publications. For CFI candidates, expect deep dives into pilot certificate privileges (listed in order), medical certificate durations and BasicMed changes, Part 61 vs. Part 91 distinctions, and FOI/FIA missed written questions — come with write-ups prepared. For CFII, he leans hard into instrument regulations: IFR currency, IPC procedures and where to find the criteria (Instrument ACS), preflight action requirements under 91.103, alternate airport requirements under 91.169, and descent/approach rules under 91.175. He also tests VOR checks (VOT procedures specifically), holding entries, VDP calculations, and approach plate interpretation including differences between approach variants at the same airport.
Common Questions
- Explain the order of pilot certificates by privilege level.
- Describe medical certificate durations and recent BasicMed regulatory changes.
- Differentiate Part 61 and Part 91 — what does each part govern?
- Teach a lesson on a specific topic (taxiing in crosswinds, weight and balance, IFR cruising altitudes, holding procedures) and be ready to cite the FAA source that supports your explanation.
- What constitutes adequate instruction?
- Walk through how to legally conduct an IPC and where the criteria are published.
- Explain what happens when you declare minimum fuel vs. an emergency.
- What is the obstacle clearance for an MSA? Can you level off on a glide path during an RNAV approach?
- How would you choose an alternate, and what are the alternate minimums for a given approach?
- Calculate a VDP from a published approach plate.
- Explain RVR restrictions and the difference between in-flight visibility and reported visibility.
Practical Focus
The gouges available focus heavily on the oral portion. For the CFI ride, teaching demonstrations are a significant component — pilots reported giving full lessons on topics like taxiing in strong winds and weight and balance calculations. Rothfus expects you to teach using both manual (longhand) methods and simplified tools like POH moment charts. For CFII, expect to teach holding entries using both GPS and VOR, and to work through approach plate scenarios for real airports (KSLC, KYKM, KBUR, KSNS were all referenced).
Examiner Style
Rothfus is thorough and methodical but not adversarial. He gives you room to demonstrate knowledge — if you have write-ups for missed written questions, he won't belabor those items. He's conversational but will challenge you to prove your answers by pointing to the actual FAA diagram, chart, or regulation rather than just accepting a verbal explanation. He emphasizes correct aviation terminology (he'll call you on it if you skip terms like "station" during a weight and balance lesson). He also offers practical professional tips, like recommending FAR BOT for regulation searches and stressing the importance of teaching students to reference FAA publications directly.
What Surprised Pilots
- He expects you to physically locate diagrams and references in FAA publications (PHAK, Instructor's Handbook, ACS) during the oral — not just explain concepts from memory. Have your books tabbed or know them well enough to find things quickly.
- He places strong emphasis on using precise terminology. Paraphrasing or casual descriptions may get flagged.
- He may ask you to verify that your FAA publications are the current edition and explain how you'd confirm that.
- He recommends specific tools and resources during the checkride — it's partly an evaluation and partly a mentoring conversation.
Examiner Patterns
Early reports (2) suggest
- Oral style: 2 of 2 applicants report the examiner mixed recall and scenario questions
- Density altitude: 2 of 2 applicants report the examiner did not cover density altitude
- Go/no-go discussion: 2 of 2 applicants report the examiner discussed go/no-go as part of a scenario
- Equipment failure simulated: 2 of 2 applicants report the examiner did not simulate an equipment failure
- Preflight briefing: 1 of 2 applicants report the examiner gave no preflight briefing
Based on self-reported pilot submissions. Data methodology
Ratings & Checkride Types
- CFI (Certified Flight Instructor)
- CFII (Instrument Flight Instructor)
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.