Factors Contributing to the "DPE Shortage" – The DPE’s Role (Part 3 of 3)

In parts one and two of this three-part series, I identified and discussed measures that Certificated Flight Instructors (CFIs) and their students might take to help alleviate the “DPE shortage.”  CFIs must exercise greater diligence in teaching to the Airmen Certification Standards (ACS) and including the required endorsements in student logbooks ahead of check-rides.  Students can slow down their decision-making process – taking the time to ensure the instructor or school they select will demonstrate the knowledge and training climate to adequately meet their needs as paying customers.  But Designated Pilot Examiners (DPEs) constitute the third leg to this triangular problem and any effective solution that follows.  Students and CFIs – despite all we could do – will still experience check-ride delays without DPE “buy-in.”  In part three, we shift the spotlight to the evaluator and what more these experienced aviator-leaders might do to address the long delays within the airmen certification process.

This post proved the most difficult to write, to date.  As a CFI, the risks to alienating any DPEs in my area of operations was a serious consideration.  Even if what I concluded is supported by the quantitative data (i.e., “the numbers”) or legal facts, there are some “sages” out there who will disagree out of passion and despite my best intentions.  One individual evaluator – whom I recently contacted to express my discontent regarding sexist commentary directed at one of my students – dug their heels in and cited “decades of experience” to evade responsibility for their words.  To be clear, I don’t feel this individual represented the majority of DPEs I’ve encountered.  Most evaluators are hard-working class acts!  But there remains a minority who constitute a drag on the flying community.  It is my sincerest hope that the below might find all of you with at least an open mind for this singular discussion.  I’ve come to learn that experience can’t teach us everything – that even this middle-aged government hound can still learn a new trick or two, provided that I’m willing.  And if I can dedicate a few moments to reflect upon my own practices, I hope you can too. 

Before I begin, any DPE out there is right to wonder what gives me the right – a CFI – to offer feedback on our airman certification process, but my professional history isn’t devoid of relevant experience to speak intelligently on the subject.  You don’t have to be a professional aviator to understand how the government operates.  Any supervisor who has worked for Uncle Sam for at least a few years will testify that the experience comes with a modicum of legal training and more time than they’ll admit interpreting federal regulations.  Aviation Safety Inspectors (ASIs) are not the only federal employees who are paid to interpret regulations and supervise third-party, non-employees.  In my case, I authored part of a federal government regulation and took on the role of interpretating the “standards” our 1,000+ pages of guidance contained to a motely group of the more than 12,000 personnel operating within my field, across the globe.  During one three-month stretch, the phones in my work section rang off the hook after a rule’s amendment.  Supervisors and “old-hands” called for our legal interpretation before undertaking certain operational actions or applying for process waivers.  The experience was enlightening, but it also taught me some humility.  Just because I could tell field supervisors “no” to a request in the name of safety or the mission, it didn’t give me the legal or ethical right to embed my own worldview within that regulation.  I also learned that ALL federal agencies – DOD, DOT, FAA, etc. – are themselves subject to the same basic requirements in formulating their respective policies.[1]

My last government assignment also saw me teaching as a professor of practice at a graduate school in my area.  The role expected me to both convey my experience to the up-and-coming junior managers in our field, but also to supervise and evaluate other instructors in teaching methods and curriculum design.  The Fundamentals of Instruction (FOIs) guided much of what we did and so I began CFI training with that material already seared into my brain after years of daily practice.[2]  To be sure, every instructor has a bad day in the classroom or in the office.  So too do our DPEs!  But our fanatical observance of the FOIs compelled positivity and also strongly guided what we could or could not say in a public forum regarding our professional enterprise.

By now I’m sure at least a few DPEs out there see where I’m headed and may be quick to counter with a comment akin to the one I heard a few months back, “I’m not employed by the FAA, Josh.  Those rules don’t apply to me.”  While the first half of the statement is 100% correct, my twenty-four years of federal experience revealed that Uncle Sam’s long arms reach well beyond his direct employees – contractors and those who accept a federal certification fall within his legal purview.  I’ve witnessed firsthand what can happen to federally certified contractors and practitioners who ascribed to the above notion and were shocked to find themselves beneath the legal microscope when they fell short of standards.  The occasional claims to clemency built upon the idea that we’re business owners and not government employees are naïve, at best.  As DPEs or CFIs who have invested years learning the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), we ought to know better than to think we’re above them – but as both above examples illustrated – not all of us are aware or accepting of it.

With that said, let’s turn our attention to the first area where I might propose improvement: endorsements.  Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 61 is crystal clear about when endorsements are required, but it doesn’t mandate how those endorsements are worded.  One well-known YouTube VLOGer recently invited a DPE guest in their area to discuss “endorsements” where they frustratingly recalled the mass of students who have showed to their check-rides with “mis-worded statements.”  I reached out to this DPE via email to clarify and they responded back the same day with, “there's NO excuse for that, especially considering they're all contained in [the] AC.”  I decided to dig deeper by asking this evaluator how AC 61-65 constituted a mandate for how endorsements are worded:

“I’d like to ask a follow-up question:  if AC 61-65K is not compulsory, how can we hold CFIs or students accountable for an ‘incorrectly worded’ endorsement?

The FAR – an approved, legally enforceable regulation with a compliance statement – calls for an ‘endorsement’ in certain situations (i.e., before a checkride), but it does not compel the precise wording of that endorsement.  An Advisory Circular constitutes ‘accepted’ guidance and is not an approved regulation, but it does provide ‘sample’ endorsements that are not ‘legally binding.’  Paragraph 1 of AC 61-65K even goes as far as to specifically state, ‘conformity with the guidance document is voluntary only. Nonconformity will not affect rights and obligations under existing statutes and regulations’.”

Their quick reply was as precise as it was legally correct: “I’ve never turned away an applicant simply b/c the wording wasn’t precisely according to whatever version of 61-65 was in effect at the time.”  But I find this reply rather interesting given their direct statements to the contrary during the YouTube VLOG episode.  To be clear, a DPE can turn away a student when they do not present the required endorsements, but their doing so on account of “imprecise wording” is sketchy from a legal point of view.  At worst, this DPE had incorrectly interpreted a federal regulation and in a public forum – something the government has demonstrated little patience for and presently disallows from employees or certificated practitioners whenever they encounter it.  I’m no tattle whenever my own students are not involved, but I seriously doubt this DPE’s ASI is aware of their pronouncement on endorsements.  

Consistent with the above individual’s statements, DPEs have also turned away students for “misworded endorsements” in my area.  The endorsement was in the logbook as required per FAR Part 61, but several CFIs hadn’t written it precisely against the “sample endorsements” in AC 61-65’s appendix.[3]^,[4]  Yet another DPE took to the internet to claim that approximately on third of the nearly 25,000 cancelled checkrides in 2024 were due to disqualification on account of “endorsements or experience.”  The FAA hasn’t released data to the public detailing the extent of this specific issue and so this author was unable to corroborate the claim, but for all the public complaining it just may constitute a frequent occurrence.  One thing DPEs might do to save their own time and reduce their opportunity costs – or their students’ – is taking the time to read the opening paragraph of AC 61-65K and honor its non-binding status.  I continued in the above email with, “don't get me wrong!  As a CFI, I like having written “guidance” to refer to.  It makes things simple.”  But when a semantic mistake is made – instead of punishing a student and wasting your own time and money by turning them away – consider venting that frustration to your ASI who’s best positioned amend the rules in your favor.  While this CFI has the most current edition of AC 61-65 on his electronic desktop, refers to it often, and encourages his colleagues to do the same (see part one), let’s keep the certification pipeline moving when the issue amounts to what’s not legally enforceable.[5]

The second DPE faux pas I have personally witnessed is one completely out of the hands of CFIs and students: professional conflicts.  Many DPEs out there hold their position as a part-time gig or “side hustle” to another professional pursuit.  While the FAA neither mandates a check-ride quantity minimum nor a full-time focus on evaluations, this choice has some serious impacts on the speed of the certification pipeline.[6]  One DPE I contacted for my “double-I” (i.e., CFI – Instrument) certification last fall asked to reschedule my check-ride on account of foul weather, “I’ll call back by Friday with a new date and time, Josh.  I’m about to start the first leg of my route and I can’t look at my calendar this morning.”  This individual was a wise and experienced airline pilot and made the right choice about the month-early dose of winter weather.  I obliged and waited patiently for a few days, but when I didn’t hear back from him by that Saturday, I followed-up.  No response.  I reached out again the following Monday.  Nothing.  After a week passed, I concluded this DPE had taken me on when his primary professional responsibilities could scarce afford him the time and I moved on.  Several weeks later and a few days before my CFII checkride with another evaluator I finally received his phone call, “Josh, how about we reschedule?”  “I’m sorry,” I responded, “but when I didn’t hear back a week after when I was supposed to hear from you, I scheduled with someone else.”  To put it politely, he didn’t appreciate my taking my business elsewhere.  But as a paying customer, I didn’t like being kept waiting weeks after an agreed upon deadline and I certainly didn’t appreciate being blamed for it. 

Spotty communications constitute only half of this second point, however.  The FAA’s statistics detailing just how inconsistently DPEs are leveraging their evaluation certifications are the other piece.  According to the numbers, “there is a broad range of activity levels among examiners:

"The FSANA [The Flight School Association of North America] reported DPEs conducted 153,967 practical test events from Oct. 1, 2024, through Sept. 30, 2025, up from 129,000 in FY2024 and 140,000 the previous year. The organization further reported that the total examiner pool reached 1,122 active DPEs.

The data shows a broad range of activity levels among examiners. FSANA reported that 536 DPEs completed between 100 and 400 tests, while 319 conducted fewer than 50 tests during the fiscal year. A smaller group of 48 examiners performed more than 400 tests, including 22 who recorded more than 500 evaluations. The association noted that 264 DPEs accounted for 52.9% of all tests by completing 200 or more evaluations. Last year also saw a rise in total number of DPEs as well.

FSANA said the figures illustrate how testing demand and examiner activity varied across the network. The organization noted that more than 28% of DPEs averaged fewer than one test per week during the reporting period."[7]

The above math revealed that:

• Only 4.2% of the DPEs across the country are averaging more than one evaluation, each day.

• Only 1.9% of our DPEs are averaging 1.3 evaluations each day.

• Only 23% of our DPEs account for 52.9% of ALL the 153,967 tests given through the above reporting period.

• 28% of our DPEs are only completing a single check-ride, each week.[8]

To say that the some DPEs are working harder than others is an understatement.  But what’s less obvious is the impact the “28% of DPEs conducting a single check-ride, each week” have on overall evaluator availability.  While DPEs are in the legal right to evaluate as a part-time pursuit, it’s slowing our training pipeline.  The “28%” are occupying valuable billets that more passionate and less distracted candidates might fill and we can’t afford inconsistency at a time when we’re projected to experience “a shortage of nearly 30,000 pilots by 2030.”[9]  I know that working as a professional educator is tough and monotonous, but my suggestion here would be to move on if you harbor even the slightest doubt in your own availability.  To be clear, there is nothing wrong with part-time work to supplement your income or to keep you busy in retirement, but the impact on a demanding, but slowing economy cannot take a backseat to personal preference within our industry.  This economy – this country – needs more pilots.

The disagreement around rising costs is the last and most controversial that I’ll discuss.  Six years ago, my DPE charged me $600 for my initial check-ride. My instrument and commercial evaluations – both completed in 2023 – set me back $800 each.  But one of my students will shell out $900 for their very first private pilot check-ride next month.  We can logically argue that paying more for an instrument or commercial checkride should cost more.  But my student is paying 50% more for their private pilot license than I did only six years ago – that’s a 50% increase that even the 25% of recorded inflation since January of 2020 doesn’t explain.[10]  The rising cost of check-rides is outpacing the infamous rise in grocery prices! 

Regional differences might account for some of that increase, but nearly all prices along the I-70 corridor from Pennsylvania to Missouri reflect that approximately 50% increase.  Some DPEs have taken to public forums and the internet to assert that “supply and demand” are the reason behind their price hikes.  But that’s difficult to argue in light of 28% of the DPE cohort performing a single evaluation each week, while others are evaluating on a daily basis.  That argument only holds up when every DPE is working full-time – when the supply (i.e. availability) of DPEs is maximized.  I wouldn’t tell a DPE how to run their business any sooner than I would accept anyone telling me how to run mine as a CFI, but our choices can have a very real impact on the industry at large and that’s proving unfair to our students and the community.

Congress’ passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act is the one piece of promising news that I must mention, here.[11]  As a former professional educator, feedback was a mandated, institutional norm that our instructor-supervisors took seriously.  Student surveys are an effective means of rooting out bad educators who are not willing to abide by the Fundamentals of Instruction.  While some DPEs have already taken to the airwaves to speak out against it, I’ll side with the Congress and the FAA on this one. 

Not every professor was as pure and effective as they might have convinced their bosses, but unfortunately for them, students can be a candid bunch.  Furthermore, it is naïve to presume that every DPE out there is as professional as we might hope them all to be.  Every tree will always bear a few bad apples, but if you’re one of those aforementioned “class acts” this is not bad news.  Would you not prefer the FAA to root out that small minority of DPEs who constitute a stain on the flying community’s opinion of you?  I myself learned to embrace the academic feedback process and with gusto.  It rid my department of unprofessional elements that made my life and the lives of my students unnecessarily dramatic.  Instead of assuming that a student might have nothing positive to say about you after a tough check-ride, it’s worth reflecting on how this legally mandated process might improve your professional interactions.  Students and CFIs who’ve been around the block a few times can be a mistrusting bunch and culling the ill-intentioned would go far toward boosting confidence in the airmen certification process.

DPEs are right to call on students and their instructors to do more, but the most effective solutions are never one or even two-sided.  We – DPEs, CFIs, and students – each have a stake in the game and we should all accept our responsibility to do more.  Again, my hat is off to those DPE super-stars out there who keep this community aloft.  Keep up the good work and I hope to see you on the flight-line when the weather improves. 

Fly on Folks,

Josh Meyer                

[1] “Agency Use of Guidance Documents,” US Congress, USCongress.gov, 2021:  https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10591

[2] Aviation Instructor’s Handbook, FAA, FAA.gov, 2025, Chapter 8:  https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/aviation_instructors_handbook/10_aih_chapter_8.pdf

[3] Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 61, FAA, ecfr.gov, 2026:  https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-61

[4] Advisory Circular 61-65K, FAA, FAA.gov 2025:  https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-65K.pdf

[5] Aeronautical Information Manual, “Code of Federal Regulations and Advisory Circulars,” FAA, FAA.gov, 2026:   https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap0_cfr.html

[6] Order 8000.95D – Designee Management Policy, FAA, FAA.gov, 2025:  https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_8000.95D.pdf

[7] Mark Ryan, “Report Shows Rise in DPE Supply,” Flight Schools Association of North America (FSANA), AVweb.com, 2025: https://avweb.com/aviation-news/report-shows-rise-in-dpe-supply/

[8] Ibid.

[9] “What is the Pilot Shortage,” ThurstFlight, ThrustFlight.com, 2025: https://www.thrustflight.com/pilot-shortage/

[10] “Current US Inflation Rates: 2000-2026,” CoinNews Media Group, 2026: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/

[11] H.R. 3935, US Congress, govinfo.gov, 2025, Sec. 208: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-118hr3935enr/pdf/BILLS-118hr3935enr.pdf