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 their CAA GVC or A2 CofC, operational authorisation, logged PIC hours by airframe (M300, Matrice 350, WingtraOne), and payloads flown: LiDAR, multispectral, thermal.
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 current GVC with operating safety case, hundreds of logged hours across multirotor and fixed wing, fluent with LiDAR and multispectral payloads.
02
Evaluation factor
Situational awareness under load
30% weight
Probe how they track battery state, wind gusts over exposed moorland, raptor activity, and BVLOS observer positions while running an automated Pix4D or DJI Terra grid.
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 telemetry, weather and airspace continuously, aborting a mapping grid early on gusts, low voltage or a nesting bird disturbance.
03
Evaluation factor
Decisions under pressure
25% weight
Test fly-away, GPS loss and motor failure calls over remote peatland: emergency landing site selection, protected habitat avoidance, and reporting to the accountable manager.
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 specific aborts and forced landings with reasoning, chose ground over sensitive habitat, filed occurrence reports and changed procedure afterwards.
04
Evaluation factor
Communication discipline
15% weight
Assess site briefings with ecologists, landowners and contractors, NOTAM and airspace coordination, plus how they log flight records and share deliverables with GIS teams.
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
Runs structured pre-flight briefs, coordinates cleanly with ATC and land managers, keeps auditable flight logs and hands over well documented survey data.
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.
