Mark Rebholz DPE Checkride Gouges

Oral Emphasis

Rebholz structures his orals around realistic Part 135-style scenarios. For the commercial checkride, expect a full mission briefing: a specific route, passenger considerations, weight and balance at max gross, and real weather for the day of the test. He then changes conditions to legal minimums and asks you to walk through your go/no-go logic.

• Decision-making framework: Is it legal? Can the airplane do it? Can you do it safely?
• Regulations and personal minimums — know the specific reg references and be able to explain limitations
• Weather analysis tied to the actual conditions on your test day, then hypothetical deteriorating weather
• For CFII, the oral was reported as unusually long, covering topics like AHRS failure simulation and G1000 system procedures in depth

Common Questions

• Walk through a real cross-country mission from departure to destination, including diversions and passenger logistics
• Explain why you would or would not fly in given weather conditions — he wants a layered answer covering legality, aircraft capability, and personal skill
• Describe how you would handle situations you haven't personally experienced but are legally permitted to fly in
• For instructor candidates: How would you simulate specific instrument failures in a G1000 aircraft? Be prepared to cite the manufacturer's manual and defend your method

Practical Focus

• Heavy emphasis on pilotage and dead reckoning — flying a cross-country segment using only outside references and landmarks before referencing the chart
• Estimating distances to landmarks without a map to demonstrate situational awareness
• For CFII, expect to teach unusual attitude recoveries and shoot approaches with the examiner flying portions of the flight
• Approaches reported include VOR circling approaches at towered and non-towered fields in the Phoenix practice areas (Coolidge, Wickenburg area)
• Standard commercial maneuvers were described as straightforward once the navigation-heavy portion was complete

Examiner Style

Reports paint a sharply divided picture depending on the certificate level. For the commercial single ride, he was described as a great and experienced examiner — conversational, scenario-driven, and fair. For the CFII ride, the experience was markedly different: confrontational at times, with strong opinions about flight training culture, school quality, and what constitutes "real" pilot experience.

• He will challenge your teaching methods and may insist on procedures that differ from your training environment's standards
• He has been known to make pointed comments about training backgrounds and employers
• Pacing can be slow during the oral — expect a long session, especially for instructor certificates
• During flight, he may take controls to demonstrate a point, and his demonstration flying style may differ significantly from what you were taught

What Surprised Pilots

• The pilotage-first navigation requirement caught one pilot off guard — flying in an unfamiliar area with limited prior exposure to the local landmarks made this especially challenging
• For CFII, the examiner insisted on pulling a circuit breaker to simulate an AHRS failure, which contradicted the G1000 manual's guidance — be ready to respectfully cite your sources if you disagree
• One pilot reported being asked to change radio frequencies and MFD pages during flight in the practice area, which removed traffic awareness tools and led to multiple traffic conflicts
• The examiner exceeded Vno during a demonstrated unusual attitude in moderate turbulence, which unsettled the applicant
• He flew a circling approach at 55 knots with full flaps at 500 AGL and told the applicant their school's 90-knot approach speed was wrong — expect strong opinions on speeds and configurations