Evaluate Flight Attendant candidates across 4 weighted areas: ratings and technical competence, situational awareness under load, decisions under pressure, and communication discipline. Ratings and technical competence leads at 30%, so check type-specific certification and recurrent training: aircraft types flown, door and slide arming drills, halon and PBE use, AED and EpiPen. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.
safety critical operationscabin crewevacuation drillsinflight medicalpassenger de escalation
TL;DR
For ratings and technical competence, look for evidence the candidate names aircraft types, exit configurations and recurrent check dates; describes door arming, cross-check and emergency equipment locations without hesitation. For situational awareness under load, look for evidence the candidate describes scanning routines during heavy service, catching an unlatched bin or intoxicated passenger early, and securing the galley before the cabin call.
Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
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 type-specific certification and recurrent training: aircraft types flown, door and slide arming drills, halon and PBE use, AED and EpiPen handling, decompression and ditching procedures.
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
Names aircraft types, exit configurations and recurrent check dates; describes door arming, cross-check and emergency equipment locations without hesitation.
02
Evaluation factor
Situational awareness under load
30% weight
Probe how they track a full cabin during boarding, turbulence and meal service: headcount, exit row briefings, unattended bags, stowage checks, galley securing before descent.
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 scanning routines during heavy service, catching an unlatched bin or intoxicated passenger early, and securing the galley before the cabin call.
03
Evaluation factor
Decisions under pressure
25% weight
Test real incidents: inflight medical events with MEDLINK or MedAire, Level 2 or 3 disruptive passengers, diversions, smoke in cabin, and when they escalated to the purser or flight deck.
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 event, the call made, who was informed and the outcome, including restraint or ABP recruitment decisions and the post-flight report filed.
04
Evaluation factor
Communication discipline
15% weight
Assess command discipline: NITS briefings, standard evacuation commands, sterile flight deck protocol, interphone use, and clear passenger address in accented or non-native English.
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 precise standard phraseology, respects sterile cockpit periods, briefs crew and passengers concisely, and de-escalates conflict without raising voice.
Evidence-led prompts
Interview questions for a Flight Attendant
Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.
01
What is your understanding of the role of a flight attendant?
02
How comfortable are you with handling emergency situations?
03
What is your highest level of education, and do you hold any relevant certifications?
04
How do you handle stressful or unpredictable situations on the job?
05
How have you handled a difficult passenger or customer in the past?
