Interview scorecard template

Flight Attendant interview scorecard

Pre-screening scorecard for Flight Attendant candidates.

See AI scoring
safety critical operationscabin crewevacuation drillsinflight medicalpassenger de escalation
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

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Sloppy phraseology; incomplete handovers.

2
Needs Improvement

Drifts from standard phrasing under pressure.

3
Satisfactory

Disciplined communication; handovers occasionally thin.

4
Very Good

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.

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.

Explore AI Scorecards