Most pilots only think about a Designated Pilot Examiner from one side of the table. You are the applicant, the DPE is the person evaluating you, and the goal is to get through the practical test with a new certificate or rating at the end of it.
There is another side to the DPE system that most pilots never see. What happens when the FAA decides that an examiner should no longer be conducting checkrides?
That question is now the subject of a federal lawsuit involving several former DPEs, and it raises some interesting questions about how much independence an examiner actually has.
In March 2026, former DPEs Robert Lasky and Joseph Puglia filed a lawsuit against the FAA arguing that the agency’s process for removing DPEs does not provide adequate due process. Jonathan Matlach was later added to the case, which was subsequently transferred from federal court in Florida to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The lawsuit makes a number of allegations about how the FAA handles DPE terminations, including the argument that examiners can lose their designation without being given sufficient information about the reasons for the decision or a meaningful opportunity to respond. Those are allegations made by the plaintiffs, not findings by the court, and the case is still working its way through the legal process.
Still, the underlying issue is worth considering.
DPEs are in an unusual position
A DPE is not an FAA employee, but a DPE is also not simply an independent flight instructor who happens to conduct checkrides on the side. The FAA designates examiners to perform practical tests and other certification activities on its behalf, which puts them in a somewhat unusual position.
When you sit down for a checkride, the DPE is expected to make an independent decision about whether you meet the applicable standards. The FAA is not sitting in the airplane making that decision alongside them. At the same time, the FAA oversees the DPE program and controls the designation that allows the examiner to conduct those tests.
That creates an important balance. The FAA needs enough authority to remove an examiner who is not doing the job properly, but the examiner also needs to know that there is a fair process when their designation is put at risk.
The former DPEs argue that the current system does not provide that balance.
That is particularly significant because losing a DPE designation is not necessarily a minor professional inconvenience. Someone who has spent years working as an examiner may have built a substantial part of their aviation career around that designation. The lawsuit also argues that certain types of termination can have consequences beyond simply losing the ability to conduct practical tests.
Complaints are part of the system
There is an obvious reason for the FAA to take complaints about DPEs seriously. The examiner has a tremendous amount of authority over an applicant’s career, and there need to be mechanisms for dealing with an examiner who is behaving improperly.
At the same time, complaints are an unavoidable part of conducting checkrides.
A pilot who fails a practical test is not necessarily going to be happy about it. Most pilots understand that a failure does not automatically mean the examiner did anything wrong, but that does not mean every applicant will see it that way. A DPE who consistently makes difficult decisions is going to have unhappy applicants from time to time.
That creates an uncomfortable possibility if the system does not provide enough protection for the examiner. A DPE needs to be able to tell an applicant, “You’re not ready,” without worrying that the applicant’s reaction could put the examiner’s designation in jeopardy.
That does not mean DPEs should be insulated from complaints. Quite the opposite. If an examiner is treating applicants unfairly, ignoring the standards, or otherwise failing to do the job properly, the FAA needs to be able to investigate and take action.
The question is what happens in between those two things: a complaint being made and a designation being taken away.
There is a bigger issue here
The DPE shortage makes this more than an argument about administrative procedure.
There are already large parts of the country where pilots have difficulty finding an examiner, and removing an experienced DPE from the system means those applicants have fewer options. They may have to wait longer, travel farther, or delay a checkride that they were otherwise ready to take.
That does not mean the FAA should keep a bad DPE around simply because the country needs more examiners. It does mean that the process for bringing examiners into the system, supervising them and removing them has consequences for everyone on the other side of the table.
There is also a fundamental contradiction worth thinking about. We expect DPEs to be independent enough to fail an applicant when necessary. We do not want an examiner thinking, “I’d better pass this person because I don’t want a complaint filed against me.”
If that is the expectation we have of DPEs, the system needs to give examiners enough confidence that they can make unpopular decisions without being afraid of retaliation.
Pilots need more information about DPEs
One of the problems with the DPE system is that pilots often have very little information when they start looking for an examiner. You may know that a DPE is available in your area, but it can be difficult to know what other pilots’ experiences have been like.
That is one of the reasons we built flyPIREP.
flyPIREP gives pilots a place to share their experiences with DPEs and helps other pilots see what their peers have reported before scheduling a checkride. It is not intended to replace FAA oversight, and a review is not a determination that an examiner did anything wrong. It is simply another source of information for pilots trying to navigate a system that can be surprisingly difficult to understand from the outside.
As the FAA continues to look at how DPEs are selected, monitored and evaluated, having more information available to pilots can only help. If you have taken a checkride with a DPE, you can share your experience at flyPIREP.com.
Accountability and due process are not opposites
It is easy to turn this into an argument over whether the FAA or the DPEs are right. The more useful question is whether the system can accomplish both goals at the same time.
The FAA should have the ability to act quickly when there is a legitimate safety concern. An examiner who poses a real risk to applicants should not be able to continue conducting checkrides for months simply because a lengthy administrative process is underway.
But there is a difference between temporarily removing someone from testing duties while an investigation takes place and permanently ending that person’s designation. A system can allow the FAA to protect applicants immediately while still giving the examiner a meaningful opportunity to understand the allegations and respond to them.
That seems like an important distinction, particularly in a program where the people being evaluated are depending on the examiner to exercise independent judgment.
The lawsuit will ultimately have to work its way through the courts, and it remains to be seen how much of the plaintiffs’ argument will survive that process. It is not evidence that the FAA’s entire DPE system is broken, nor does it mean that every DPE who has lost a designation was treated unfairly.
It does, however, shine a light on a part of the system that pilots rarely have a reason to think about.
When you walk into a checkride, the DPE is the person evaluating you. Behind that person is a much larger system of FAA oversight, designation, complaints and accountability. If we expect DPEs to make independent decisions about whether pilots are ready to exercise the privileges of a certificate, it is worth asking whether the system gives those examiners a fair and predictable process when their own designation is challenged.
That matters to pilots too. The health of the DPE system is not just about how easy it is to get a checkride on the calendar. It is also about making sure the people conducting those checkrides have the independence, accountability and confidence to do their jobs properly.