Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Ratings and technical competence
30% weight
Check for Part 107 with any BVLOS or 108 waiver experience, named airframes (Wing, Zipline, Matternet, custom multirotor), plus LAANC, UTM integration and maintenance release authority.
Evidence to listen for
Holds the current ratings, licences, or endorsements the position requires
Knows the rules, minima, and standards cold, not approximately
Familiar with the equipment and airspace, network, or plant in question
Clear on the boundary of their own authority
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Lacks required ratings, or shaky on the standards that keep people alive.
2
Needs Improvement
Holds the ticket but hesitant on rules and minima.
3
Satisfactory
Competent and current; slower on unfamiliar configurations.
4
Very Good
Rules and minima are second nature; strong on the specific environment.
5
Excellent
Holds Part 107 and has authored or operated under a BVLOS waiver, naming specific airframes, payload limits and maintenance release procedures.
02
Evaluation factor
Situational awareness under load
30% weight
Probe how they monitored multiple simultaneous flights: GCS dashboards, C2 link loss alerts, TFR and NOTAM checks, weather minima calls, and how many aircraft per operator.
Evidence to listen for
Keeps the whole picture while handling one problem
Describes how they shed or reprioritise tasks when volume spikes
Notices the thing that has gone quiet, not just the thing that is loud
Knows their own saturation point and says so before reaching it
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Tunnel vision under load; loses the wider picture entirely.
2
Needs Improvement
Copes at normal volume; degrades badly when it spikes.
3
Satisfactory
Holds the picture in most conditions; occasional fixation.
4
Very Good
Maintains awareness under high load and reprioritises deliberately.
5
Excellent
Describes concrete scan patterns across a multi-aircraft dashboard, catching link degradation or wind shifts before an abort became an incident.
03
Evaluation factor
Decisions under pressure
25% weight
Test their handling of real events: lost link, geofence breach, forced landing over populated area, ATC calls, and how they ran the ASRS or NTSB reporting afterwards.
Evidence to listen for
Decides on incomplete information rather than freezing
Chooses the safe option when uncertain, and can say why
Recovers from their own error without concealing it
Can describe a real event where they made the call
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Freezes, or gambles when the safe option was available.
2
Needs Improvement
Slow to commit; defers decisions that were theirs to make.
3
Satisfactory
Decides adequately in familiar situations.
4
Very Good
Decides quickly and safely, and owns errors openly.
5
Excellent
Recounts a specific abort or emergency landing, the decision timeline, ground risk mitigation, and the reporting and corrective action that followed.
04
Evaluation factor
Communication discipline
15% weight
Assess phraseology with ATC and remote pilots, shift handover records, customer and dispatcher updates during grounding, and how they briefed crews on daily airspace constraints.
Evidence to listen for
Uses standard phraseology and readback discipline without shortcuts
Hands over completely, including what is unresolved
Speaks up to someone senior when safety requires it
Stays measured on the loop when the situation is not
Precise phraseology and complete handovers, and will challenge seniority on safety.
5
Excellent
Uses standard radio phraseology, runs structured handovers with documented aircraft status, and grounds the network clearly without ambiguity to dispatch.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
