![Flight instructor and student inside small Piper aircraft [Credit: Adobe Stock]](https://www.flyingmag.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/01/AdobeStock_139858404-scaled.jpeg)
A class action complaint on behalf of Designated Pilot Examiners (DPEs) has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The 36-page complaint was filed on behalf of former DPEs Robert Lasky and Joseph Puglia, both of Florida. The complaint is designed to bring attention to the fact that there is no due process for DPEs who are suspended or terminated.
Both Lasky and Puglia have several decades of aviation experience as commercial pilots, instructors, and examiners.
The contract between the FAA and the DPEs states the designation is “a privilege and not a right” and can be terminated immediately with no explanation.
The complaint contains a history of how the DPE program, as it is known today, came to be.
“Nobody is contesting that we may have some bad apples, there’s no doubt, just like every walk of life,” said Puglia, who held the designation of DPE for 26 years, in addition to an ATP certificate and five type ratings. “But everybody deserves a fair shot with clear evidence and an opportunity to clear their name and get to the truth of whatever the allegation is, and if it means termination rightfully of a designee, then so be it.”
When a DPE is suspended, they often find out from a telephone call from the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) or in an email that informs them of their suspension pending the investigation of a complaint. They are instructed to immediately stop administering flight tests pending the conclusion of the investigation.
More often than not, the outcome is termination, without the DPE getting an explanation, a review, or having the opportunity to defend themselves against allegations that in some cases may be fabricated by an applicant, CFI, chief instructor at a flight school, or even another DPE who is seeking more business.
According to Puglia, there is a culture at some flight schools that promotes the use of specific DPEs for their favorable (to the school) test pass rate. DPEs who have failed too many applicants from that particular school, although they are local to the school, are not utilized.
Some schools offer incentives, such as paying for the DPE’s travel and lodging if they come from out of the area.
David St. George, a 30-year DPE and the executive director of the Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE), said there currently exists an “adversarial relationship between applicants and DPEs with the CFI in the middle, as DPEs are held hostage with threats of complaints and termination from lucrative employment.”
DPEs are contractors and keep all of the $700 or more they get for a check ride. Often the check rides are paid for in cash and the fee is paid up front.
“There is a lot of liability and risk with a check ride,” said Puglia. “There were a couple of times where I almost lost my life doing a check ride. It does not outweigh the money you charge suddenly—that day you didn’t charge enough for the check ride.”
Over the past four years FLYING has received multiple telephone calls and emails from DPEs across the country complaining about allegedly capricious and, some say, vindictive dismissal. Some reported getting death threats.
Some DPEs reported that there are schools and CFIs they won’t work with anymore because the applicants are poorly prepared or the aircraft not airworthy, but a notice of disapproval—which would be the right call—could result in the DPE facing a complaint and dismissal.
When a DPE is dismissed, it creates a ripple effect in the training environment, said Puglia, noting that there often is already a long wait time for a check ride, and that increases the cost of pilot certification as the applicants have to keep flying to maintain proficiency until another check ride can be lined up.
Jack Webb, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said the lack of recourse opens the door for capricious dismissal and discrimination. People who would belong to a protected class in a civilian workplace—like those over the age of 40, which both Lasky and Puglia are—have no recourse when terminated, he said.
“The elimination of due process is not limited to the DPEs over the age of 40. The elimination of due process applies to all designees for the most part, under the auspices of the FAA,” Webb said. “So let’s say now they’re going after DPEs over the age of 40, or over the age of 50. Who’s to say that tomorrow that we’re going to go after all of the women who are DPEs, or all of the African Americans or all of the Jews? And there’s nothing to prohibit that discriminatory behavior, because there is no due process.”
Added Puglia: “We believe there are approximately 190 designees who are no longer designees, and we’ll find that out now as we go through this lawsuit and discovery.”
Puglia said that many DPEs who are terminated without explanation, or who witness this happening to colleagues, simply opt to hang up their examiner wings because no amount of money is worth the stress of fighting the FAA or having a constant threat hanging above your head when trying to enforce the standards designed to make aviation safer.
The plaintiffs are requesting a jury trial.
When asked for comment, the FAA said it does not discuss pending litigation.
The full complaint can be found below:
