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 the missions and consoles they have been certified on, plus command of subsystem behaviour and flight rules.
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
Console-certified on real missions, with subsystem behaviour and flight rules known without reference.
02
Evaluation factor
Situational awareness under load
30% weight
Test how they hold the whole vehicle state when one subsystem is misbehaving and telemetry is delayed.
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
Holds full vehicle state during a subsystem anomaly, working correctly with delayed or gapped telemetry.
03
Evaluation factor
Decisions under pressure
25% weight
Assess a real anomaly they worked, where waiting and acting both carried risk.
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
Made a real anomaly call under time pressure toward the recoverable option, and reported their errors openly.
04
Evaluation factor
Communication discipline
15% weight
Judge command discipline, procedure adherence, and how completely they hand over a shift mid-anomaly.
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
