Aviation Exam Software: RFP Checklist
Aviation exam software is the system an aviation training organization uses to build, deliver, mark and store its knowledge examinations. A request for proposals (RFP) for it works best when it starts from the rules that apply to your approval, turns each rule into a testable requirement, and asks every vendor for evidence instead of a claim of compliance.
That matters because the primary sources I read, as of October 2026, do not approve software. Under EASA Part-147 and FAA 14 CFR Part 147 the duties sit with the organization or school: keep questions secure, keep records, run a quality system. The RFP is where you find out whether a vendor makes those duties easier or harder.
This checklist is for exam officers, quality managers and heads of training at maintenance training organisations, Approved Training Organisations, FAA Part 147 schools and aviation course sellers. It adds the aviation layer to a general buying process, so read it beside the assessment platform RFP checklist, which covers weights, response codes and scoring. Rules differ by country and change over time, so check your competent authority before you copy any requirement into a contract.
Key takeaways
- An aviation exam software RFP should trace each requirement to a rule, such as question security, exam environment control, audit access or record keeping, and ask for a demo or sample as evidence.
- None of the provisions quoted below approves or certifies a software product, so treat “EASA compliant” or “audit ready” wording as a question to ask, not an answer.
- Keep pass/fail gates to the few requirements that protect question security and records: restricted bank access, role separation, a read-only auditor view, full data export and retention you control.
- Test every finalist with the same five-step drill, using original sample items.
What should an aviation exam software RFP cover that a generic one misses?
A generic assessment RFP checks features such as item types, reporting and branding. An aviation RFP adds evidence that the software helps you meet duties your approval already puts on you: protecting exam questions, controlling the exam environment, keeping complete records and giving auditors access. Those duties come from the rules, not from the software.
The rules I read say little about software features. They say who keeps questions secure, what happens when a student cheats, where an exam may be taken and how long records are kept. Your RFP has to translate those duties into things a vendor can show you.
Which aviation rules turn into RFP requirements?
Six provisions in EASA Part-147 translate directly into RFP rows: question security, cheating sanctions, the exam environment, independent audit of exam integrity, the examination manager role and record keeping. The table below pairs each with the requirement to write and the evidence to ask for. Confirm current wording with your competent authority.
On sources: I read the Part-147 rule text in the version of Annex IV published on legislation.gov.uk (31 January 2020), and the guidance in EASA’s AMC and GM to Part-147, Issue 2, Amendment 3 (ED Decision 2023/019/R). EUR-Lex lists newer consolidated versions of Regulation (EU) No 1321/2014, the latest dated 7 August 2026, so wording may have moved since.
The table shows what each provision says, the RFP requirement it supports and the evidence that proves a vendor can meet it.
| Provision | RFP requirement to write | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| 147.A.135(a): “The examination staff shall ensure the security of all questions.” (quoted) | Role-based access to the item bank, so only named examiners see questions, plus a log of who viewed, edited or exported each item. | Role and permission matrix; a sample activity log from a demo account. |
| 147.A.135(b): a student found cheating in a knowledge examination is disqualified and “may not take any examination for at least 12 months after the date of the incident” (quoted) | An incident record attached to the candidate, and a block that holds across sessions and exams until the examination manager lifts it. | Demo: flag a test candidate, then try to schedule a new attempt. |
| AMC1 147.A.145(c): examinations may be conducted via URL addresses “provided the knowledge examination environment is under the control of the maintenance training organisation” (quoted) | A written list of the controls you keep (start windows, access codes, venue-only delivery, invigilator roles) and a plain statement of what the software cannot control on a candidate’s own device. | A pilot at your venue and with one remote test account; the vendor’s written limits. |
| 147.A.130(b): an independent audit function to monitor “the integrity of knowledge examinations” (quoted in part) | A read-only auditor role and exportable logs of exam creation, changes and delivery. | An auditor test account and one exported log. |
| AMC1 147.A.105, point 1: “an examination manager with the responsibility of managing the relevant Part-147 Subpart C or Subpart D examination system” (quoted) | Separate roles for examination manager, examiner, instructor and invigilator, with the examination manager able to see and approve every exam. | Try each role in the demo and record what it can and cannot open. |
| 147.A.125: keep “all student training, examination and assessment records for an unlimited period” (quoted in part) | Retention you set yourself with no automatic deletion, and an export of full responses, not only scores. | Written retention terms; a sample export of one candidate’s complete record. |
Record retention deserves a second look. EASA’s February 2024 briefing slides on its Part-147 review (rulemaking task RMT.0544, NPA 2023-10) describe a proposed change from “unlimited” to 10 years. I could not confirm whether that proposal has been adopted. Until your authority tells you, require retention that you can configure and an export that works in both cases.
What does FAA Part 147 add for aviation maintenance technician schools?
14 CFR Part 147 does not describe exam software. Section 147.23 requires a certificated school to be accredited or to keep an approved quality control system, and 147.23(b) says that system must provide procedures for “recordkeeping, assessment, issuing credit, issuing of final course grades, attendance” and other items (quoted in part, eCFR as of October 2026).
Section 147.25 measures a school’s pass rate on tests students take under part 65, with at least 70 percent passing over the most recent three-year period. Your exam software does not produce that rate, but it can export results by student, attempt and date so you can compare your own exams with outside outcomes. Write that export into the RFP, and read the current 14 CFR Part 147 text yourself.
Does EASA Part-IS apply to your exam software vendor?
It can, if your organization is in scope. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/203 applies from 22 February 2026 to Approved Training Organisations under Part-ORA, except those doing only ELA2 aircraft training or only theoretical training. Article 2(1) as I read it does not list Part-147 organisations. Ask your authority whether your case is covered.
If it is, ask whether the exam platform counts as a contracted activity. Regulation 2023/203 point IS.I.OR.235(b) says the organisation “shall ensure that the competent authority can have access upon request to the contracted organisation” (quoted in part). Either way, a contract clause giving the authority and your auditors access to vendor-held records costs little to add.
Pro tip: Let Your Auditor Write the Test Script. Ask your quality manager which exam records your last internal audit requested, and send that list to vendors as the demo script. Because 147.A.130(b) makes exam integrity an audit subject, it beats any feature list.
Which aviation exam software requirements should be pass/fail gates?
Pass/fail gates are knockout requirements: a vendor that fails one is out, whatever the price. For aviation exam software, keep gates to the few that protect question security and records. Everything else, including content features and branding, belongs in the scored list where a partial answer still earns partial credit.
A workable gate list, each drawn from the table above:
- Question bank access restricted by role, with a viewing and editing log.
- Separate examination manager, examiner, instructor and read-only auditor roles.
- Full export of items, responses, timestamps and logs, tested on your own sample.
- Retention that you configure, with no automatic deletion.
- A written description of exam environment controls and their limits.
- Contract terms that give your authority and auditors access to vendor-held records.
An item-bank export alone does not carry the response-level records and logs these rules are about, so keep full data export as its own gate.
How do you read compliance claims from aviation exam software vendors?
Treat compliance wording as a prompt for questions, not as evidence. In the vendor pages I read in October 2026, phrases such as “regulatory requirements” or “designed to cover” EASA standards rarely named a provision. Because no source I read approves software, ask which rule, which feature and who checked.
The table shows common claim wording, what it may mean and the question to put in the RFP.
| Claim wording | What it may mean | Question to ask in the RFP |
|---|---|---|
| “Supports regulatory requirements” | A general statement with no regulator or paragraph named. | Which regulation and paragraph, which feature meets it, and which authority has reviewed your use? |
| “Designed to cover EASA Part-66 and Part-147” | The vendor’s intent, not an authority’s approval. | Provide a paragraph-by-paragraph mapping, and say whether any authority has reviewed it. |
| “Compliance reporting” or “audit packs” | A report of scores, pass/fail status and progress. | Show a sample. Does it list attempts, question versions, timestamps and who changed what? |
| “Secure proctoring” | Some controls on the candidate’s device or session. | What is blocked, what happens when the connection drops, and what can the examination manager see? |
| “Question bank by topic” | Tags and folders. | Can you tag to your own syllabus references and draw each exam version to the same coverage? |
The same test applies to us. SimpliAssess’s published features page lists modules such as item banking, test management, examinee management and analytics and reporting, and describes an API-first, white-label design. It, like the training-companies page, does not mention aviation, regulators, single sign-on or accessibility standards. Those gaps are RFP questions for any vendor, us included.
Which content and delivery features belong in the scored list for aviation exam software?
Score the features that make exams fair and repeatable: syllabus tagging, blueprint-based draws, image-based items, several versions of one exam, and delivery that survives a bad connection. These are your choices, not regulatory text, so weight them by how much your exams depend on them and how your authority reads its own rules.
For maintenance training, the Part-147 text I read says basic knowledge examinations must follow the Part-66 standard, be taken without training notes and cover a representative cross section of the module (147.A.205, paraphrased). Our post on EASA Part-147 examinations goes deeper. For the RFP, turn that into rows like these:
- Syllabus tagging: every item carries your module or learning-objective reference, and tags survive export.
- Blueprint draws: each exam version pulls a set number of items per syllabus area, so versions cover the same ground. The item bank guide lists fields to track.
- Image-based items: diagrams, charts and drawings stay readable on your venue’s screens.
- Multiple versions: several forms of one exam, with the form recorded against each attempt.
- Delivery under poor connectivity: autosave, reconnection behavior and what happens to a half-finished attempt.
- Timing and access rules: start windows, access codes and extra-time accommodations, as set out in the exam security settings checklist.
How should you score the aviation requirements?
Keep your general weights, then reserve a visible share for the aviation rows and score evidence, not promises. A response backed by a demo or a sample export earns full marks; a roadmap item or “we can arrange this” earns far less. Split the aviation points by how much each row would hurt in your next audit.
As an illustration only, here is one way to give the aviation rows 40 of 100 points and leave 60 for the general requirements. Treat totals within a couple of points as a tie and settle it in the pilot.
- Question security and roles: 10 points.
- Records, retention and export: 10 points.
- Audit access and logs: 8 points.
- Exam environment controls: 6 points.
- Syllabus coverage and content features: 3 points.
- Incident handling and candidate blocks: 3 points.
How do you test finalists with an aviation exam drill?
Run the same five-step drill with every finalist, using original sample items and never real exam questions. Each step mirrors something an auditor or an incident will ask of you: who saw the questions, what happened to a cheating candidate, what one attempt’s record shows, what you control remotely, and whether you can leave with your data.
Step 1: Question exposure. Log in as an instructor without bank rights and try to find, preview or export an item. Then check that the activity log recorded the attempts.
Step 2: Incident drill. Flag a test candidate for cheating, attach a note, then try to schedule a new attempt. The block should hold until the examination manager lifts it, and the record should show who did that.
Step 3: One-candidate audit request. Ask the vendor to produce the complete record for one test candidate: every attempt, the form and item versions served, start and end times, and every edit to those items. Open the file in your own tools.
Step 4: Environment test. Deliver one exam at your venue and one to a remote test account. Write down which controls applied in each case and which did not.
Step 5: Exit drill. Export the whole sample bank, every result and the logs, then rebuild three items in another system or a spreadsheet. If that takes more than a day, price it into the decision.
Pro tip: Write Retention as a Setting, Not a Promise. Because the retention rule may change, put in the contract that you can change the retention period without renegotiation, and that you receive a complete export and written deletion confirmation when the contract ends.
What should you do next?
Copy the two tables into a spreadsheet and add your own rows for anything specific to your approval. Ask your quality manager or competent authority to confirm each rule’s wording first, and fix gates and weights before any vendor demo.
For the general process, SimpliTrain, a separate training platform from the same company as SimpliAssess, publishes a free LMS RFP template: a Word template plus an Excel vendor questionnaire with more than 100 questions. Both are written for learning management system evaluation, not exam software, so add the aviation rows from this post to them.
Frequently asked questions
What is aviation exam software?
Aviation exam software is a system for building, delivering, marking and storing exams for aviation training, such as maintenance knowledge examinations or recurrent checks. It typically includes an item bank, exam delivery, results and records. The label describes a use, not a certified product category, so features and evidence vary widely by vendor.
Does EASA or the FAA approve aviation exam software?
No provision I read approves, certifies or accepts a software product. Part-147 requires the organization to have procedures acceptable to the competent authority, and 14 CFR 147.23 requires a quality control system with recordkeeping and assessment procedures. Software is judged through those organizational procedures. Check with your authority, because practice can differ by country.
Can Part-147 knowledge examinations be taken remotely?
EASA’s AMC1 147.A.145(c) says knowledge examinations may be conducted via URL addresses provided the examination environment is under the control of the maintenance training organisation. What counts as control is for your competent authority to judge, so ask it before relying on remote delivery, and describe your controls and their limits in your procedures.
How long must aviation exam records be kept?
The Part-147 text I read says all student training, examination and assessment records must be kept for an unlimited period, and EASA’s 2024 review slides describe a proposed change to 10 years. I could not confirm which applies today. Ask your competent authority, and require retention you can configure plus a full export from any vendor.
Can a general assessment platform work for aviation exams?
Yes, if it passes your gates. The rules quoted here put duties on the organization, so a general platform can support them when it offers role-based question security, full exports, configurable retention and auditor access. Ask for the same evidence you would demand from an aviation-branded product, and test it in a pilot.
Who should score the RFP responses?
Use at least three scorers with different roles: the examination manager, the quality manager and someone responsible for IT or data protection. Part-147 guidance (AMC1 147.A.105) refers to an examination manager, and 147.A.130(b) calls for an independent audit function. Score separately first, then discuss differences before you add up the totals.
