Steven Brimmer DPE Checkride Gouges

Oral Emphasis

Brimmer's oral is heavily scenario-driven. Reports describe him framing the entire discussion around a hypothetical flight (e.g., flying to California with a friend), then using that scenario to naturally cover privileges and limitations of the instrument rating, required documents, airworthiness, personal minimums, weather decision-making, pitot-static systems, aircraft instruments, and icing. He spends meaningful time on ADM — not just whether you can do something legally, but whether you should.

• Instrument rating privileges and limitations
• Required documents and airworthiness (state, federal, maintenance — touched on but not deep-dived)
• GRABCARD items (asked to list, not explain in detail)
• Personal minimums and real-world go/no-go decisions
• Pitot-static system failures — multiple failure scenarios (front clogged, back clogged, both clogged, static port clogged) and what you'd do about them
• Aircraft-specific instrument systems (e.g., magnetometer-based heading, air data computer, LRU, standby instruments)
• Icing types and hazards
• Mandatory weather reporting triggers
• Fuel planning for alternates — conceptual, not nav-log math
• ORCA and obstacle clearance altitudes (mountainous terrain specifics)

Common Questions

Pilots reported a pattern of layered, scenario-based questioning rather than rote oral-exam-style drilling:

• He'll set up a realistic trip scenario and let topics flow from it — expect follow-up questions that go a level deeper.
• He asks about pitot-static failures in stages: what happens if both ports are blocked, then just the ram air inlet, then the static port — and what you'd do to fix each situation.
• He probes personal minimums with specific numbers — e.g., if ceilings were just below your stated personal minimum, would you still go?
• He asks whether you could legally depart in zero-zero conditions, then follows up asking whether you should.
• Fuel planning is conceptual: how would you confirm you have enough fuel for the alternate, considering distance, burn rate, and groundspeed?
• He may ask you to list items (like GRABCARD) without requiring you to explain each one in depth.

Practical Focus

Limited detail was reported on the flight portion, but here's what came up:

• Departure incorporated elements from the CRAFT clearance discussed during the oral — expect continuity between the two phases.
• He had the pilot intercept a Victor airway that had been plotted on the nav log during planning.
• The flight appears to follow naturally from the scenario built during the oral, so thorough flight planning ties directly into what you'll fly.

Examiner Style

Brimmer is conversational and scenario-based rather than formal or checklist-driven. Pilots describe an oral that feels more like a discussion than an interrogation. He builds a narrative and pulls topics from it organically, which means you may cover required subjects without realizing you're being tested on them. He gives credit when you've already addressed a topic earlier — he won't make you repeat yourself. He doesn't appear to deep-dive into maintenance or nitpick rote memorization; he's more interested in understanding and decision-making.

What Surprised Pilots

• The scenario-based flow meant some topics were covered conversationally and checked off without a formal question — e.g., mentioning unforecast weather as a mandatory report during an icing discussion satisfied that topic later.
• He didn't scrutinize the nav log itself — fuel and alternate planning were handled conceptually rather than with calculator-level math.
• The pitot-static questioning went deeper than expected, with multiple layered failure scenarios and resolution steps.
• The emphasis on "can you vs. should you" — particularly around zero-zero departures — stood out as a key ADM theme.