The rubric is one half of a paired scoring system. The other half (the behavioural-indicator menu, Table 1) is in A4.D Core Competencies: that reference defines what each competency is through its observable indicators (a-i, depending on competency). Reference E here defines how well the pilot demonstrated those indicators by anchoring five behavioural levels to the same indicator set. An instructor never grades an indicator in isolation; the indicators are the menu, the grade is the pattern across the menu.
Eight of the nine competencies (PRO, COM, FPA, FPM, LTW, PSD, SAW, WLM) trace to the ICAO core-competency framework published in ICAO-9995 Appendix 1 to Part II. The ninth, KNO (Knowledge), is an addition introduced in Appendix 4, which adopts the ICAO core competencies and adds Knowledge as a distinct ninth competency. The grading rubric below treats KNO on the same five-level scale as the other eight, with descriptor wording adapted to the knowledge-as-distinct-competency framing.
The 1-to-5 scale itself is the same VENN-grading family used across ICAO-9995 and broader EBT practice (see VENN grading). The four VENN dimensions (How Well, How Often, How Many, Outcome) are encoded in the descriptor wording of every cell below: "exemplary / effective / adequate / minimum acceptable / not adequate" carries the How Well axis; "always / regularly / regularly / occasionally / rarely" carries the How Often axis; "all / all / most / some / any" carries the How Many axis (the breadth of indicators demonstrated); and "significantly enhanced safety effectiveness and efficiency / enhanced safety / safe operation / did not result in an unsafe situation / resulted in an unsafe situation" carries the Outcome axis. Read the cell as a single integrated statement: it is not four independent judgements but one behavioural pattern whose four facets are surfaced explicitly so the rater can be challenged on each.
The rubric is reproduced below verbatim, one section per competency. Each section presents the five grade levels (5 highest, 1 lowest) as a markdown table, mirroring the source layout. Competency codes follow A4.E Performance Grades and align with ICAO Doc 9995 for PRO (Application of Procedures). FPA and FPM split ICAO flight path management (AFM-A / AFM-M sub-elements). Behavioural content matches the ICAO framework.
The pilot applied procedures in an exemplary manner, by always demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which significantly enhanced safety effectiveness and efficiency
4
The pilot applied procedures effectively, by regularly demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which enhanced safety
3
The pilot applied procedures adequately, by regularly demonstrating most of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in a safe operation.
2
The pilot applied procedures at the minimum acceptable level, by only occasionally demonstrating some of the performance indicators when required, but which overall did not result in an unsafe situation
1
The pilot did not apply procedures correctly, by rarely demonstrating any of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in an unsafe situation
The pilot communicated in an exemplary manner, by always demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which significantly enhanced safety effectiveness and efficiency
4
The pilot communicated effectively, by regularly demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which enhanced safety
3
The pilot communicated adequately, by regularly demonstrating most of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in a safe operation
2
The pilot communicated at the minimum acceptable level, by only occasionally demonstrating some of the performance indicators when required, but which overall did not result in an unsafe situation
1
The pilot did not communicate effectively, by rarely demonstrating any of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in an unsafe situation
The pilot managed the automation in an exemplary manner, by always demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which significantly enhanced safety effectiveness and efficiency
4
The pilot managed the automation effectively, by regularly demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which enhanced safety
3
The pilot managed the automation adequately, by regularly demonstrating most of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in a safe operation
2
The pilot managed the automation at the minimum acceptable level, by only occasionally demonstrating some of the performance indicators when required, but which overall did not result in an unsafe situation
1
The pilot did not manage the automation effectively, by rarely demonstrating any of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in an unsafe situation
The pilot controlled the aircraft in an exemplary manner, by always demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which significantly enhanced safety effectiveness and efficiency
4
The pilot controlled the aircraft effectively, by regularly demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which enhanced safety
3
The pilot controlled the aircraft adequately, by regularly demonstrating most of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in a safe operation
2
The pilot controlled the aircraft at the minimum acceptable level, by only occasionally demonstrating some of the performance indicators when required, but which overall did not result in an unsafe situation
1
The pilot did not control the aircraft effectively, by rarely demonstrating any of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in an unsafe situation
The pilot had exemplary knowledge, by always demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which significantly enhanced safety, effectiveness and efficiency
4
The pilot had good knowledge, by regularly demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which enhanced safety.
3
The pilot had adequate knowledge, by regularly demonstrating most of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in a safe operation
2
The pilot had knowledge of a minimum acceptable level, by only occasionally demonstrating some of the performance indicators when required, but which overall did not result in an unsafe situation
1
The pilot did not have adequate knowledge, by rarely demonstrating any of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in an unsafe situation
KNO is Appendix 4's ninth competency. The rubric above grades it on the same five-level scale as the eight ICAO competencies; KNO lists the seven performance indicators this rubric is read against.
The pilot led and worked as a team member in an exemplary manner, by always demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which significantly enhanced safety effectiveness and efficiency
4
The pilot led and worked as a team member effectively, by regularly demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which enhanced safety
3
The pilot led and worked as a team member adequately, by regularly demonstrating most of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in a safe operation
2
The pilot led and worked as a team member at the minimum acceptable level, by only occasionally demonstrating some of the performance indicators when required, but which overall did not result in an unsafe situation
1
The pilot did not lead or work as a team member effectively, by rarely demonstrating any of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in an unsafe situation
The pilot solved problems and made decisions in an exemplary manner, by always demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which significantly enhanced safety effectiveness and efficiency
4
The pilot solved problems and made decisions effectively, by regularly demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which enhanced safety
3
The pilot solved problems and made decisions adequately, by regularly demonstrating most of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in a safe operation
2
The pilot solved problems and made decisions at the minimum acceptable level, by only occasionally demonstrating some of the performance indicators when required, but which overall did not result in an unsafe situation
1
The pilot did not solve problems or make decisions effectively, by rarely demonstrating any of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in an unsafe situation
The pilot's situation awareness was exemplary; all performance indicators were always demonstrated when required, which significantly enhanced safety, effectiveness and efficiency
4
The pilot's situation awareness was good, by regularly demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which enhanced safety
3
The pilot's situation awareness was adequate, by regularly demonstrating most of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in a safe operation
2
The pilot's situation awareness was at the minimum acceptable level, by only occasionally demonstrating some of the performance indicators when required, but which overall did not result in an unsafe situation
1
The pilot's situation awareness was not adequate, by rarely demonstrating any of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in an unsafe situation
The pilot managed the workload in an exemplary manner, by always demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which significantly enhanced safety effectiveness and efficiency
4
The pilot managed the workload effectively, by regularly demonstrating all of the performance indicators when required, which enhanced safety
3
The pilot managed the workload adequately, by regularly demonstrating most of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in a safe operation
2
The pilot managed the workload at the minimum acceptable level, by only occasionally demonstrating some of the performance indicators when required, but which overall did not result in an unsafe situation
1
The pilot did not manage the workload effectively, by rarely demonstrating any of the performance indicators when required, which resulted in an unsafe situation
Looked at across the nine competencies, the rubric encodes a single behavioural pattern five times over. The vocabulary is deliberately parallel: the level-3 cell of every competency contains the same combination ("adequately / regularly / most / safe operation"), and the level-1 cell of every competency contains the same combination ("did not / rarely / any / unsafe situation"). The competency-specific verb at the head of each cell ("applied procedures", "communicated", "managed the automation", "controlled the aircraft", "had... knowledge", "led and worked as a team member", "solved problems and made decisions", "situation awareness was", "managed the workload") is the only competency-discriminating element; the rest of the cell is a shared template.
This deliberate parallelism is a design choice, not a drafting accident. It makes the rubric tractable for instructor-standardisation: a rater who has internalised one row across all nine competencies (for example, the level-2 row) has internalised the level-2 standard for any competency they need to assess. It also constrains rater drift: an instructor who finds themselves describing a level-3 performance using level-4 vocabulary ("the pilot communicated effectively, by regularly demonstrating all of the performance indicators") has by definition graded level 4, regardless of their narrative impression of the session.
The trade-off is that the rubric carries little competency-specific texture. The behavioural detail of what good PRO looks like lives in the indicator menu on A4.D Core Competencies (the five PRO indicators a-e); the rubric here only quantifies how much of that menu was demonstrated, how consistently, and to what outcome. Both halves are necessary; either half alone is unscoreable.
A4.2.1 Guidance for Examiners. Sets the operational role of grading inside the EBT debrief sequence: the grade-2 threshold for Additional Training Required is enforced there.
Core competencies. Consolidated overview of the nine-competency framework (eight ICAO + KNO).
VENN grading. The 1-to-5 grading-scale family this rubric belongs to; the four VENN dimensions are the axes encoded in every cell above.
KNO. Appendix 4's ninth competency, with its seven performance indicators reproduced separately.
ICAO-9995. The standards-body source for the eight ICAO core competencies the rubric assesses.
Behavioural indicators. The general concept of observable-behaviour-as-evidence that this rubric and the indicator menu jointly operationalise.
EBT. The methodology the rubric serves: every assessment phase produces one grade per competency from this rubric.
