flyPIREP Find a DPE Eric Haupt

Eric Haupt

Seattle FSDO • Active

Sign in to see reviews and contact information

Read what other pilots have to say about their checkride experience with this examiner

2 Testing Locations

📍

Maple Valley, WA

23231 Se 262nd Ct

98038

📍

MAPLE VALLEY, WA

23231 SE 262ND CT

98038

Authorized Checkrides

Private Pilot Examiner, Glider Commercial Pilot Examiner, Glider

About These Profiles

Examiner style profiles are generated from aggregated, anonymous observations submitted by multiple applicants. They describe how checkrides are typically conducted, not individual outcomes or examiner intent. This site does not rank, endorse, or recommend examiners—it exists to help applicants prepare for checkrides more effectively by understanding typical checkride structure, not individual performance or outcomes.

Questions or Corrections

If you believe a profile contains inaccurate or misleading information, you may request review.

Profiles are based on aggregate data and may change as new observations are submitted. Individual reviews are not edited or removed unless they violate our content guidelines.

Eric Haupt

Checkride Observation

Draft saved

Help future applicants prepare

This site collects observations about checkride structure and expectations. It does not track pass rates or personal opinions.

Your observations will help others:

✓ Understand what to prepare for
✓ Know what to expect during the checkride
✓ Identify specific areas to review

Review Guidelines

Reviews on this site should focus on checkride structure, expectations, and preparation. Comments about outcomes, motives, or character are not permitted.

Checkride Details

Let's start with some basic information

Checkride Type *

PPL = Private Pilot, IR = Instrument Rating, CPL = Commercial, etc.

Checkride Date *

⚠️ Reviews can only be submitted for checkrides completed at least 72 hours ago

Outcome *

This information is used for internal weighting only and helps ensure balanced perspectives. It is not displayed publicly or used to calculate pass rates.

Checkride Fee (optional)

The exact amount you paid is never displayed. We only show anonymized price ranges to help future applicants budget.

How much did you pay for this checkride? ($500–$4,000)

About Checkride Outcomes

Checkride outcomes are collected to improve data accuracy and are never displayed publicly. This information helps us weight observations appropriately and ensure balanced perspectives.

How was the checkride conducted?

These observations help future applicants prepare

Oral exam structure *

Linear ACS walkthrough

Systematic review following ACS order

Scenario-based

Integrated scenarios with follow-up questions

Mixed (ACS + scenarios)

Combination of both approaches

Other / unclear

Question depth *

How deep did questioning go once a topic started?

Surface-level
across many topics 3 Very deep
on fewer topics

Flight portion emphasis *

Select up to 2 primary areas

Maneuver precision

Accurate control within ACS standards

ADM / decision making

Risk management and situational judgment

Systems application

Aircraft systems knowledge in context

Workload management

Task prioritization and organization

Scenario execution

Realistic problem-solving sequences

ACS tolerance application *

Lenient As-published Strict Varied by task

Note: Descriptions of ACS tolerance reflect applicant perception of how standards were applied, not FAA determinations.

Debrief style *

Thorough with explanations

Detailed discussion of performance, ACS standards, and areas for improvement

Standard

Covered pass/fail decision and key takeaways

Brief but clear

Quick summary of results without detailed analysis

Minimal

Pass/fail only with little to no feedback

No debrief provided

No discussion of performance or results

The following fields are optional but help paint a fuller picture of the checkride experience.

Oral exam duration

Under 1.5 hours 1.5 – 3 hours Over 3 hours

Flight portion duration

Under 1 hour 1 – 2 hours Over 2 hours

Intervention style during flight

Allows self-correction

Gives time to recognize and fix errors before intervening

Intervenes early

Steps in quickly when deviations are noticed

Mixed

Varied approach depending on the situation

How consistently were expectations applied?

Rate each area on a scale of 1-5

Expectations clearly explained *

Requirements and standards communicated upfront

Poor

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

Additional observations (optional)

0 / 500

ACS standards applied consistently *

Standards applied uniformly throughout evaluation

Poor

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

Additional observations (optional)

0 / 500

Professional demeanor *

Conducted evaluation in a professional manner

Poor

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

Additional observations (optional)

0 / 500

Time management *

Efficient use of time during evaluation

Poor

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

Additional observations (optional)

0 / 500

Debrief clarity *

Clear explanation of results and areas for improvement

Poor

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

Additional observations (optional)

0 / 500

One final check

Good reviews help applicants prepare, not predict outcomes.

Does your review focus on how the checkride was conducted?

* Yes, this is preparation-focused

Your observations will help future applicants know what to study, how to prepare, and what to expect—regardless of checkride outcome.

Share specific observations

Help future applicants prepare with concrete details

* One thing future applicants should be ready for is...

Focus on what to prepare, not what happened to you

Minimum 20 characters 0 / 500

* Expectations were clear / unclear because...

Describe how requirements were communicated, not your feelings about them

Minimum 20 characters 0 / 500

Additional observations (optional)

Any other preparation-focused details

0 / 1000

Reminder: This observation helps future applicants prepare effectively. Focus on actionable details, not personal experiences or emotions.