MaxFli Aviation

SD24(A) · Appendix 6 · A6.5

Examiner Competence Framework

Graded examiner performance markers from UK CAA Standards Document 24(A) Version 6 — used when observing examiners at initial issue, renewal and revalidation.

← Back to Examining

Note from A6.5: The competencies in Column 3 are in addition to those in Column 2, whilst those in Column 4 are in addition to those in Columns 2 and 3. In practice: Good includes Basic; Very Good includes Good and Basic.

Five competence areas are graded: Briefing, Simulator Operation, Instruction, Assessment and De-brief.

  • 1 — Requiring Improvement
  • 2 — Basic Standard
  • 3 — Good
  • 4 — Very Good

Briefing

1 — Requiring Improvement

  • Lack of preparation
  • Starts briefing without introduction
  • Lack of engagement with the crew
  • Little or no interaction with crew
  • Little or no use of board or other visual medium
  • Little or no reference to H&S
  • Makes no reference to the company behavioural markers scheme
  • Let personal opinion deflect from training objectives
  • Didn’t support the value of CRM training

2 — Basic Standard

  • Invites questions
  • Generates a relaxed atmosphere
  • Creates a climate conducive to learning
  • Briefs all items required by Doc 24
  • Provides all required documentation
  • Refers to NOTECHS or company behavioural markers scheme
  • Use of visual aids to support teaching points
  • Identifies H&S requirements

3 — Good

  • Good introduction
  • Identifies the needs of the crew
  • Delivers the Doc 24(A), technical and non-technical, without change of style
  • Uses facilitation appropriately
  • Clear structure and clarity for all visual aid work
  • Includes NOTECHS in all areas including company behavioural markers

4 — Very Good

  • Generates a high level of engagement with crew
  • Responds appropriately to the needs of the crew
  • Defines clearly what is expected of the crew
  • Very responsive to questions
  • All visual aids support and enhance the briefing and teaching points
  • Manages potential barriers to learning including awareness of cross-cultural differences

Simulator Operation

1 — Requiring Improvement

  • Limited familiarity with IOS
  • Irregular observation of crew
  • Incorrect R/T
  • Distracted by IOS at key observing moments
  • Limited note taking
  • Inappropriate use of freezes and repositions
  • Overloading of failures
  • Poor radar vectoring

2 — Basic Standard

  • Checks simulator log and approvals
  • Efficient use of IOS
  • Presents repositions to crew correctly
  • Correctly sequences failures
  • Observes all failure/repeat items
  • Effective note taking

3 — Good

  • Crew enters the simulator with the correct scene set
  • Introduces failures appropriate to crew actions
  • Adjusts ‘running sequence’ to optimize time management
  • Observes accurately identifying appropriate behavioural markers
  • Identifies crew or individual fatigue

4 — Very Good

  • Very realistic scenarios
  • Role play of other agents responsive to crew’s actions
  • Clarity of examiner, instructor role
  • Comprehensive observation/notes
  • High level of flexibility to the training, checking plan
  • Identifies root cause for all activity
  • Is cognisant of the effect on the crew of any input from the Instructor/examiner

Instruction

1 — Requiring Improvement

  • Unaware of the root cause of the fault
  • Emphasis on the ‘What’ rather than the ‘How’
  • Inappropriate style
  • Mixing of instruction and examining
  • No reference made to (any relevant) Non-Technical Skills
  • Did not demonstrate empathy for the crew

2 — Basic Standard

  • Crew made aware when acting as an instructor or examiner
  • Correct observation of faults
  • Provides correct technical input
  • Makes mention of relevant NOTECH category or element

3 — Good

  • Clear identification of root cause/behavioural markers
  • Facilitates error analysis where appropriate
  • Identifies teaching points with key words and concise phrases
  • Seamlessly integrates technical and non-technical skills with pointers
  • Continuously monitors progress of the session and responds accordingly

4 — Very Good

  • Generates a high level of engagement with the crew
  • Increases the confidence and skills of the crew throughout the training event
  • Facilitates crew learning especially regarding behavioural markers
  • Assists the crew with the assessment of their own performance

Assessment

1 — Requiring Improvement

  • Standard not correctly applied
  • Lack of evidence to support assessment
  • Many important items missed

2 — Basic Standard

  • Correct assessment
  • Applies Repeats and Retests
  • Identifies good performance
  • Identifies poor performance
  • Makes technical and non-technical assessment

3 — Good

  • Skilled use of Repeats and Retests for maximum value to crew
  • Assesses cause behind good/poor performance

4 — Very Good

  • Fully at ease with assessing the required standard and identifying this to the crew
  • Comprehensive knowledge of company behavioural markers when making an assessment
  • Clear understanding of root causes to all actions
  • Keeps abreast of HF developments from the CAA, ICAO and other sources

De-brief

1 — Requiring Improvement

  • Result not clearly stated
  • Chronological
  • No prioritisation of faults
  • Little opportunity for crew to review their own performance
  • Nit-picking
  • No reference to company behavioural markers scheme or NOTECHs
  • Displayed limited knowledge of the core EASA CRM subjects

2 — Basic Standard

  • Clear statement of result and use of 5Rs
  • Clear prioritisation of faults
  • Holds the agenda
  • Some use of facilitation
  • Encourages crew to provide their views
  • Integration of NOTECHS
  • Supports company SOPs
  • The ability to focus on main issues
  • Written report supports the result offered

3 — Good

  • Starts with an introduction
  • At ease with facilitation to move the de-brief in the required direction
  • Draws common faults together
  • Links NOTECHS or company behavioural markers into the result of the check
  • Balances praise and criticism
  • Generation of summary
  • Ability to listen to crew feedback
  • Offers tips and advice
  • Identifies missing skills (technical and non-technical)

4 — Very Good

  • Allows the crew to drive the agenda with the examiner controlling the agenda
  • Achieves agreement of crew
  • Seamless integration of the NOTECHS or company behavioural markers into all aspects of the operation
  • Crew leave with clear and concise learning points
  • Checks understanding and summarises learning points covered

Context: how this framework sits with FCL.1020 and training vs examining.

Examining overview

Source: UK CAA Standards Document No. 24(A) Version 6 (November 2024), Appendix 6 paragraph A6.5 Examiner Competence Framework. Reproduced here as a working reference for MaxFli examiners and instructors. Always verify against the current official CAA publication: caa.co.uk.