✈️ New to Gouge Hub? It's a community resource for checkride prep materials shared by real applicants. Learn how it works →

Scott Worthington DPE Checkride Gouges

Designated Pilot Examiner • (Scott Meade Worthington)Location coming soon

CPL IFR PPL
↓ View 4 available gouge reports
Andrew Gray, CFI-II 1,500+ hrs · Former US Navy & Boeing · Data methodology

Oral Emphasis

Weather is Scott's signature topic across all certificate levels. Multiple pilots report he pulls up aviationweather.gov and works through surface analysis charts, METARs, TAFs, PIREPs, winds aloft, fronts (cold, warm, occluded, stationary), high/low pressure systems and their flow directions, troughs, ridges, isobars, and standard pressure in millibars. He wants you to explain why the weather is happening that day using real charts — not just decode them.

Beyond weather, he consistently digs into:

  • Aircraft maintenance logs and inspection intervals — have specific dates, times, and expiration dates ready to show
  • Privileges and limitations for your certificate level (PIC for PPL, commercial vs. common/private carriage for CPL, instrument rating privileges for IFR)
  • Currency requirements (including instrument currency — 6 HITS, simulator applicability)
  • INOP equipment procedures and required placards (he may ask you to find placard requirements in the POH)
  • Weight and balance — including alternate scenarios with additional passengers or non-standard temperatures that force interpolation in the POH
  • Airspace, cloud clearance, and chart symbology using sectionals and TACs

Common Questions

Pilots report Scott's questioning style is conversational but methodical. Common patterns include:

  • Asking you to walk through your flight plan, nav log, and fuel planning — he appreciates handwritten calculations even if you used electronic tools like ForeFlight
  • Presenting scenario-based follow-ups: a new weight and balance with more passengers, a diversion to an alternate airport with time/distance/fuel calculations, or a lost comms scenario
  • Pointing at specific symbols on a sectional or TAC and asking you to identify them and state the airspace and associated cloud clearance requirements
  • Asking about METAR remarks — items like AO2, SLP values, and how to interpret them
  • For the instrument rating: RAIM vs. WAAS, EFC times, what to do if RAIM fails on approach, and logging requirements
  • He reviews missed PAR questions but will skip any that overlap with topics he plans to cover in the flight portion

Practical Focus

For the PPL checkride, pilots report a normal takeoff to the first checkpoint, a request to identify a VOR radial en route, and a diversion with time/distance/fuel calculations. Lost comm procedures were asked during the cross-country segment. He wants hot spot briefings before taxiing.

For the IFR checkride, Scott uses a standard instrument loop out of KCRQ:

  • ILS into CRQ with a missed approach
  • RNAV Y RWY 24 CRQ with a missed approach
  • One lap in a hold at OCN into the VOR-A at OKB for a touch and go
  • Eastbound departure for unusual attitudes and magnetic compass turns
  • VFR return to CRQ

He makes it very clear that busting a DA/MDA is an automatic failure. On other standards, he is more lenient as long as you recognize the deviation and promptly correct. Unusual attitudes are described as gentle, and compass turns are straightforward.

For the commercial checkride, expect the full slate of commercial maneuvers. Pilots noted his flight plans typically originate at KCRQ with accurate weight and balance including his weight, your weight, flight bags, and fuel on board.

Examiner Style

Scott is widely described as fair, personable, and flexible. He spent decades working directly for the FAA before becoming a DPE in the San Diego area, reportedly to help address the local DPE shortage. He lays out his plan of action at the start and follows it — no surprises.

  • Conversational, not adversarial — he talks through topics and wants a dialogue, not rote answers
  • Thorough on paperwork: IACRA, logbook review, and maintenance records get real attention. He appreciates when endorsements are clean and well-organized
  • He will brief you on the flight before going out and preflights alongside you rather than grilling you
  • Flexible on scheduling around weather — willing to do the oral first and wait for conditions to improve
  • Charges the standard DPE rate for initial checkrides and $100/hr for re-checks (not the typical half-fee for a single maneuver redo)

What Surprised Pilots

  • The depth of weather questioning caught some pilots off guard — he doesn't just ask you to decode a METAR; he wants you to synthesize multiple weather products and explain the big picture
  • For the commercial oral, he may ask you to interpolate every line in the POH performance charts for a non-standard temperature scenario and then add correction factors — have your interpolation skills sharp
  • He specifically complimented clean logbook endorsement formatting and mentioned it multiple times — come with your paperwork dialed in
  • Several pilots noted he skips written-test missed questions if they overlap with flight topics, which can shorten the oral
  • He appreciates paper charts and handwritten calculations alongside digital tools — bringing both made a positive impression on multiple applicants

Examiner Patterns

Early reports (4) suggest

  • Weight & Balance: 2 of 3 applicants report the examiner worked through a W&B scenario with the applicant
  • Oral style: 2 of 4 applicants report the examiner walked through ACS task areas sequentially
  • Navigation tools: 1 of 3 applicants report the examiner accepted ForeFlight for weather only
  • Logbook review: 1 of 3 applicants report the examiner took a quick glance at the logbook
  • Density altitude: 3 of 4 applicants report the examiner did not cover density altitude
  • Go/no-go discussion: 2 of 4 applicants report the examiner briefly touched on go/no-go
  • Equipment failure simulated: 2 of 4 applicants report the examiner simulated an engine failure
  • Preflight briefing: 4 of 4 applicants report the examiner gave a brief overview before flight
  • When ACS standard not met: 2 of 3 applicants report the examiner (no ACS standard was exceeded in these reports)

Based on self-reported pilot submissions. Data methodology

Scott Worthington is a former FAA insider who runs a thorough but fair checkride — expect to spend real time on weather interpretation and know your inspection dates cold. He's flexible and personable, but don't mistake his conversational style for a free pass: he goes deep where it counts, especially on anything you can pull up on aviationweather.gov.

Get the full Scott Worthington brief →

Ratings & Checkride Types

  • CPL (Commercial Pilot)
  • IFR (Instrument Rating)
  • PPL (Private Pilot)

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.

Available Gouges for Scott Worthington

Loading gouges...

← Browse all DPE gouges  |  Back to Home