Interview scorecard template

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Specialist interview scorecard

Pre-screening scorecard for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Specialist candidates.

See AI scoring
safety critical operationsairspace authorizationbvlos operationsdrone payloadspart 107
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

Verify current Part 107 remote pilot certificate, logged PIC hours by airframe (DJI M300, Matrice 350, WingtraOne, fixed wing), plus any BVLOS or Section 44807 waivers held.

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 certificates, airframes and logged hours precisely, and cites waivers or COAs they personally wrote or operated under.

02
Evaluation factor

Situational awareness under load

30% weight

Probe how they build airspace picture before and during flight: LAANC authorization, NOTAM and TFR checks, sectional review, visual observer briefings, manned traffic and lost link procedures.

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 a specific flight where they tracked manned traffic, degrading GPS or battery margin and adjusted the mission before limits were hit.

03
Evaluation factor

Decisions under pressure

25% weight

Test judgement on aborts and emergencies: flyaway, compass or IMU error, RTH into obstacles, sudden wind or precipitation, crowd encroachment, and when they scrubbed a paying client's mission.

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 an abort or forced landing with the reasoning, the outcome, and the checklist or SOP change that followed.

04
Evaluation factor

Communication discipline

15% weight

Assess radio and crew discipline: CTAF or tower calls, PIC to visual observer phraseology, mission briefs and debriefs, incident reporting to FAA or client safety 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

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 standard phraseology naturally, shows written brief or logbook artefacts, and reports near misses without minimising them.

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