MaxFli Aviation

Examining · CAA Standards Document 24(A)

Setting the standard, not teaching to it

Policy and guidance for TRE/SFE skill tests, proficiency checks and assessments of competence on multi-pilot and complex aeroplanes — centred on the examiner competence framework in Standards Document 24(A).

Reference

What Standards Document 24(A) is for

Standards Document 24(A) (current Version 6, November 2024) is the UK CAA’s policy and guidance for examiners conducting type rating skill tests, proficiency checks, instrument rating checks and TRI/SFI assessments of competence on Multi-Pilot Aeroplanes (MPA) and Single-Pilot High Performance Complex Aeroplanes (SPHPCA), in accordance with Part-FCL.

Examiners are expected to adhere to it as part of the CAA’s programme to monitor examiner conduct and performance (ARA.FCL.205). It is the practical companion to Part-FCL Subpart K and Appendix 9 — how briefs, checks, assessments, debriefs and paperwork should actually be run.

This page is MaxFli’s working summary for instructors and examiners. It is not a substitute for the official document. Always use the current CAA publication.

Open CAA SD24(A) page

FCL.1020

What an Examiner Assessment of Competence addresses

Under FCL.1020, the assessment of competence specifically addresses five examiner performance areas — assessed against Part-FCL Appendix 9 flight test/check standards:

1. Briefing

Structure, climate for performance, required Doc 24 content, documentation, H&S, behavioural markers / NOTECHS, and appropriate use of facilitation.

2. Conduct of the test

Aircraft or simulator — realistic sequence, observation, note-taking, correct use of the device, and clarity of examiner versus instructor role.

3. Assessment

Correct application of the standard, evidence-based judgement, technical and non-technical assessment, repeats/retests used for value not convenience.

4. Debriefing

Clear result, prioritised faults, facilitation, integration of behavioural markers, balance of praise and criticism, and lasting learning points.

5. Documentation

Accurate, timely records that support the result — forms, reasons for fail items, and correct routing to applicant and competent authority.

SD24(A) also reminds examiners that they must maintain instructor competencies (AMC1 FCL.920) — including assessment and teaching of TEM and CRM — even while examining. Instructor and evaluator competency sets from EASA, ICAO and IATA may be used as additional organisational material alongside the CAA framework.

Appendix 6 · A6.5

Examiner Competence Framework

The UK Examiner Competence Framework grades observed examiner performance from 1 – Requiring Improvement through 4 – Very Good. Column 3 builds on column 2; column 4 builds on both. The CAA uses this structure when observing examiners at initial issue, renewal and revalidation.

Full framework

A6.5 markers in full

Briefing, Simulator Operation, Instruction, Assessment and De-brief — all four grades, reflecting Standards Document 24(A) paragraph A6.5.

Open Examiner Competence Framework

Briefing

From prepared, interactive briefs that create a climate conducive to performance, through to high crew engagement, clear expectations, strong visual support and awareness of barriers to learning (including cross-cultural factors).

Simulator operation

Efficient, accurate IOS use; correct sequencing; comprehensive observation and notes; behavioural markers recognised in real time; flexibility without overloading the crew; cognisance of the effect of any examiner/instructor input.

Instruction (when in that role)

Root-cause focus, technical accuracy, NOTECHS integration, facilitation of learning — and explicit clarity when acting as instructor versus examiner. Mixing the two poorly is a “requiring improvement” marker.

Assessment

Standard correctly applied with evidence; good and poor performance identified; skilled use of repeats/retests; root-cause understanding; current HF knowledge informing judgement.

De-brief

Clear result (including use of the 5Rs where applicable), prioritised faults, facilitation that lets the crew own the agenda where appropriate, behavioural markers woven through, and concise learning points checked for understanding.

Non-technical skills

CRM/MCC assessment is integral across LST, LPC, OPC, line check and LOE. Observable behavioural markers — not vague impression — support feedback and identify retraining need. Examiner/instructor competence in NTS assessment is expected in the operational environment.

Discussion

Training and examining are related — they are not the same job

Many TRE/SFEs hold both instructor and examiner privileges. SD24(A) is explicit that examining privileges may only be exercised when the corresponding instructor qualification is valid — yet the mindset in the seat must switch cleanly with the purpose of the event.

The competence framework itself flags “Mixing of instruction and examining” under Instruction as requiring improvement. Crews need to know which role you are in; so does the Senior Examiner watching your EAoC.

Instructor competencies (develop, facilitate, tailor) sit beside examiner competencies (sample, judge, decide, record). Confusing them produces soft fails, coaching during a check, or “teaching to the test” that never actually tests.

Training (instructor seat)

  • Purpose: develop competence — close gaps, build strengths.
  • Evidence informs the next practice, scenario or briefing objective.
  • Intervention and facilitation are tools for learning.
  • Success looks like progress against Pilot Competencies / TEM.
  • Debrief centres on how to improve and what to practise.
  • Repeats are for learning value, not for “getting a tick”.

Examining (examiner seat)

  • Purpose: sample and judge against a published standard (Appendix 9 / company scheme).
  • Evidence supports a pass/fail (or competency grade) decision.
  • Intervention is constrained — protect safety and test integrity, not coach the answer.
  • Success looks like a fair, defensible decision the paperwork can carry.
  • Debrief states the result clearly, then explains with prioritised evidence.
  • Repeats/retests follow the rules — for maximum value to the crew within the standard, not to avoid a difficult decision.

Where the roles meet

Both roles need TEM/CRM literacy, behavioural observation, facilitation skill and professional standards. Both should leave the crew with clarity. The difference is the contract with the crew and the regulator: training is developmental; examining is confirmatory. On a combined day (for example training then an AoC, or an LPC with permitted training elements), say which hat you are wearing — and change behaviour when the hat changes.

Practical tell-tales you are still training

Leading questions that gift the answer; stopping a sequence to teach mid-check; softening a fail because “they’d get it next time”; debrief that never states the result.

Practical tell-tales you are examining well

Crew briefed on role and standard; observation and notes that would convince another examiner; root-cause assessment; clear result first; facilitation after the decision, not instead of it.

Why MaxFli cares

Contracted SFI/SFE and TRE work only holds airline and ATO confidence if examining stays clean. The TRI Course develops instructors; examining against SD24(A) protects the licence decision.

Related

Continue from here

Training delivery How MaxFli runs instruction and simulator contracting.

Training

TRI Course Instructor development pack aligned to Doc 9995 and CAA SD29.

TRI Course hub

Discuss examining support Based in London, available worldwide.

Contact

Source: UK CAA Standards Document No. 24(A) Version 6 (November 2024), especially Appendix 6 — Examiner Standardisation & Competencies (A6.3–A6.5). Official publication: caa.co.uk.

Part-FCL privileges

Who may deliver a TRI course & run TRI AoCs

Course tutors vs TRE (a)(5) examiners — initial issue versus revalidation/renewal, including the no-self-examining rule.

Open privileges summary