Travis Mark Baker DPE Checkride Gouges

Oral Emphasis

Baker's oral covers a wide range of IFR topics but leans heavily into practical cross-country planning, regulations, and weather. Pilots reported significant time spent on:

• Airworthiness and currency: Demonstrating the airplane is airworthy, and detailed questions on instrument currency requirements (61.57) and IPC specifics — including how many approaches are required for an IPC (a nuance not explicitly spelled out in the reg itself, but referenced in the Instrument ACS appendix).
• Cross-country route planning: Justifying your filed route — why not file direct? He expects you to identify restricted areas, OROCA considerations over mountainous terrain, and compliance with RNAV departure climb gradients backed up by actual performance calculations.
• Low Enroute Chart symbology: Be prepared to identify and explain various symbols along your route. One pilot was caught off guard by the meaning of blue airport symbols (indicating airports with high-altitude approaches).
• Approach plate details: He'll walk through the approaches at your destination, including alternate requirements, and how to quickly verify standard vs. non-standard alternate minimums (Triangle A on government charts, or equivalent Jeppesen airport info).
• Weather: TAF issuance frequency, weather briefing products for icing, pitot/static system failures (what happens to each instrument if ram air ices, static port ices, or both), thunderstorm separation minimums for your aircraft type, and cloud formation identification with associated weather expectations.

Common Questions

Pilots reported the following types of questions:

• Scenario-based questions tied directly to the planned cross-country flight — "why did you file this route?" and "can we comply with this departure procedure?"
• Regulation-based questions where he expects you to know the reg number but also understand the nuances beyond what the reg explicitly states. He'll debrief the correct answer with you if needed.
• Systems-oriented questions focused on pitot/static failure scenarios and their effect on individual instruments.
• Weather interpretation — identifying cloud types and linking them to expected conditions, and knowing which specific products to consult for icing forecasts.
• Practical "how would you check this?" questions, such as quickly verifying alternate minimums on your chart type.

Practical Focus

The flight portion was described as straightforward. Key observations:

• Baker gave the pilot a choice between VFR and IFR when weather permitted either — the pilot chose IFR to simplify airspace management near Class B (SeaTac).
• Flew an RNAV departure (RENT3) followed by a full LOC approach (LOC 34 at KAWO), loaded as a full procedure.
• ATC amendments happened in real time — the pilot was cleared direct to a fix and had to locate it within the loaded procedure. Be comfortable reprogramming your GPS on the fly and knowing all the IAFs on your approach.
• Expect real-world IFR operations, not just a sterile training environment — you're working with ATC, managing clearances, and adapting as the flight develops.

Examiner Style

Baker is described as standard and professional. The oral is conversational and follows a logical flow — starting with airworthiness, moving through your cross-country plan, and branching into weather and systems along the way. He asks questions that are practical and scenario-driven rather than purely rote. When a pilot didn't know an answer (like the IPC approach count), he debriefed it after the exam rather than making it a pass/fail issue, pointing the pilot to the correct reference. He appears fair and educational in his approach.

What Surprised Pilots

• The IPC question caught one pilot off guard — the specific number of approaches required for an IPC isn't spelled out in 14 CFR 61.57 itself but is found in a table in the back of the Instrument ACS. Baker knew this and used it as a teaching moment.
• Chart symbology deep dives — knowing what blue airports mean on Low Enroute Charts was unexpected and is easy to overlook in study prep.
• The expectation to back up departure climb gradients with actual aircraft performance calculations, not just acknowledge the published gradient exists.
• Being given a choice of VFR or IFR for the flight — Baker appears flexible and lets conditions and pilot decisions shape the checkride scenario.