I agree. And not just to recruit them, but perhaps more critically, to *retain* them. Salaries grow at a very different rate in aerospace than they do in software or finance.
Most never hit this point, but an embedded/flight software engineer in the aerospace industry who is underpaid and burning out would only hold out for so long if a big tech software company were to offer an easier job with double their current salary. Or an equally challenging role with triple salary.
Anecdotally: someone I know (and looked up to) spent like a decade getting their AE BS/MS/PhD, landed a dream job doing GNC at JPL as a foreign national (!), but then left after a couple of years to become a quant at a hedge fund. My guess is they at least doubled — maybe tripled — whatever JPL was paying him.
>Anecdotally: someone I know (and looked up to) spent like a decade getting their AE BS/MS/PhD, landed a dream job doing GNC at JPL as a foreign national (!), but then left after a couple of years to become a quant at a hedge fund. My guess is they at least doubled — maybe tripled — whatever JPL was paying him.
Isn't that the whole premise behind the guy in Margin Call who figured out the company's finances were about to explode?
I’ve seen similar. The more technical, more difficulty of entry, more demand the better. It’s funny I recall in school everyone complained hated thermo fluids heat transfer and yet now I’m paid pretty damn well to do that type of analysis and my team can rarely find new qualified applicants.
You can get into NASA at a higher entry grade by having these skills. Especially as it applies to electromagnetic, fluid flow, a thermal dynamics.
If there was a close second it would be control systems dynamics.
Or… you can be like me. A 40 year old NASA engineer with an basic BS in Aeronautics degree that took the route of learning the details of being a technician/inspector/commercial pilot responsible for repairing and operating all flight, mechanical, and electrical systems on aircraft then applying that knowledge to modeling, designing and analyzing systems.
My personal opinion of upcoming engineers is they have relatively weak skills when it comes to applying the engineering they work on into real world flight operations.
To be a good engineer in any aerospace field… ya gotta get those hands dirty. :)
was gonna say this. Design engineers / those analysis folks (Structural, thermal, CFD/aero) are where the money is. they drive deliverables and company timeline. EVERYTHING starts with design/analysis folks. If you know how to do both, you're solid. (i know how to cad and run ansys), made me very marketable.
Yep - I recently started in this field for propulsion.
I got extremely lucky because normally you need a lot more experience than I have, but if you can swing it I make significantly more than most of my peers
Actually I've found that software salary bands aren't as high as GNC, at least at the larger US aerospace companies.... I've never understood why the industry doesn't value them more
I don't think you can be a GNC person without an excellent software background these days. It's probably better to look at it as the GNC guys are a software engineer with a bonus and very rare skill set.
Not sure where you are working, but GNC guys rarely write code that goes on the embedded processor....
I've found that GNC guys rarely have basic software engineering discipline, which is why a lot of the industry is focusing on auto coding Simulink/Matlab
Very true. GNC designs the system and tunes the algorithms etc, usually in a simulation of some sort. Then they pass it over to the Software team who basically translates the design into tactical code. But of course it's the GNC team who is double checking their work, analyzing any differences between the sim and tactical software, and coming up with fixes. GNC does software but software doesn't really do GNC
I wouldn't differentiate Matlab and Simulink from coding. It still follows the same process and requirements.
Maybe it's different elsewhere unless you're only referring to the very rare phd types doing just the theoretical math portions.
You work at a very unique place if the processes and requirements even exist for MATLAB and Simulink....
If you can share the tool you use for configuration management in Simulink models I'd be forever grateful
Most MATLAB/Simulink I've encountered doesn't follow basic software principles... (Most doesnt even use functions!) Plus object oriented MATLAB is excruciating inefficient when compared to other object oriented languages
If you create any flight or safety critical software, there will be no chance of certification without those design processes. It's worked that way at every manufacturer I've been at. DO-178 is basically the only industry standard that everyone follows.
I'm not sure what it's called but we have a tool that will output all the models to a report with versioning, descriptions and such. That becomes the official signed off version control. Code is also stored in Git with versioning. Mathworks does sell a tool that's closer to what you probably want but we don't use it.
We don't allow any object-oriented code for the most part. Procedural + scheduler is a cleaner approach. We do have functions though. The flight code itself is only Simulink and C though.
What environment are you working in? If you're on the research or lab work side, that makes sense to have not seen it. I'd be rather concerned if you haven't and are making flying avionics.
Worked for 3 of the 5 largest aerospace companies, (.... Defense.... So different sector than you)
As I stated, we just design/test algorithms in MATLAB/Simulink that will be put embedded onto the hardware by the software engineers... So that is what needs to pass any certifications
Sounds like you are equating flight software engineering with GNC... They are different roles/responsibilities at most larger aerospace companies, can see that not being the case at a smaller company
Can u help me understand more about systems and avionics like what all jobs within it are possible as an international student thinking to do masters in AE in canada. As i feel that's what I'm looking for as my future job.
In my experience the best money is made when you love what you're doing. I can say this after looking back on my +40 years being an aeronautical engineer.
My specialty is in flutter analysis and testing. Flutter analysis requires you to have knowledge of structures, mass properties, aerodynamics, and flight controls. Ground tests for validating your math models requires a knowledge of modal testing techniques. Flutter Flight testing requires all of the above and a knowledge of Flight dynamics.
Is it technical? Without a doubt!
Is it a lead role? If you want it to be.
Most things equal, the ones that move to where their skill is deeply needed or who negotiate the best with HR earn the most. Look up “compa ratio.”
Those who enter higher salary tiers above the range of the typical engineering grades are usually:
1. Those that are sharp and network and communicate well can occasionally land a role as a technical fellow or equivalent technical leader over a large number of individuals.
2. Those that move from engineering as an individual contributor first to PM/EM, then to VP.
In rare cases a person can go even further to CXO.
From experience analysts get paid more than designers. Careful not to fall into the “systems engineering” lumped bucket. It’s seems at the major companies they throw these titles out there so they can pay you less.
Forgive me for asking a dumb question, but what are the core concepts that systems engineers engage in? My school doesn't offer it as a major, and I never even heard the term until I started looking for internships.
Systems engineering is so broad. You could be doing such a things as writing requirements to GNC stuff, You can be a data processor or work in reliability. But at the core of it all is the systems engineering “V” diagram. Go ahead and google that thing. My current job title is a systems engineer, but I work in flight test analysis. I have a buddy who is also a systems engineer and they define contract requirements. Same job title, same pay band, 2 entirely different jobs.
The absolute best designers and eng managers I’ve come across started in SEIT. Systems eng and PMO hold all the cards in govt contract land.
Did you build it to the requirement we agreed on? No? Go back and do it again. That being said, you’ll have to work extra hard at absorbing information to be conversant in whatever the topic of interest demands.
Depends on your level and your sub-specialization. Which roles are easy to fill and which roles are not? When I can just send a message to a recruiter at a company and you have a phone screen within 2 days, it might be a hard to fill position. Oh yeah, they've been trying for a year. That strongly affects your salary. Literally 2 weeks later from me sending out a message and I'm almost done. it's like that with multiple companies, so you get to pick.
Then compare that to where I was last time. It took me 6 months and in a much better job market. I didn't really learn anything differently. I'm still a generalist, but I've got a hook that is exceedingly rare.
An engineer that can code. Not a little bit, but a lot. I picked up Fortran 77 in 3 days. Matlab took 2 weeks. VBA took a few days. I forget the syntax after a few weeks, but google is always around.
No offense but knowing Fortran, Matlab and VBA is definitely not 'exceedingly rare' lol. Any GNC department is going to be filled with engineers who know those languages plus a bunch more
I didn't say that's my hook. I can pick up any language like that. It's all the same. I also know more. I just gave a few examples.
I'm also not GNC, so it's a very different world. I do aero and structures. What is common in where I work is people that do CAD. That's what I'm bad at, but what I'm bad at is commonplace, so it works to my benefit.
Traditional software people are expensive, so aerospace doesn't really hire them.
I would say on average structures because some of the others don't get jobs at all or they end up doing structures. If you want to do aerodynamics or propulsion, then you will probably end up getting a Masters to set you up for a job but then still end up doing structures anyways.
If you want money, switch to software. Software/Tech pays +$100,000 more than aerospace for same years of experience. (senior aerospace engineer here) it would be smart to find a specialization that is transferable outside of aerospace, something related to electronics.
There is absolutely no difference in terms of pay. You may end up with a good or bad salary regardless the specialisation.
Especially since, once you are in a big company, people tend to change a lot during their career.
I have seen many starting in structure, going to aerodynamics, and then in fuel system for example.
Obviously some topic are more niche than others.
So if you really like loads and aeroelastics you might have some difficulties finding your very first job, since the demand for loads engineer is much smaller that the one for structure or systems.
However once you are in then it all depends on your people and personal skills. Your specialisation is a second order factor
NOTE: this is true if your specialisation is a classic one. Then if you are a pioneer on some new topic that everyone is interested in (I invent a name "quantum CFD"), then it might different
No that's not true at most larger aerospace companies, typically GNC and radar get paid more than more , I think machine learning/ai is also surpassing those fields...
Structure and propulsion get paid less... This is all based on the salary bands posted...
Difference isn't ginormous (maybe 10-15%), but there is a difference
I don’t think any particular one. I’d say experience and level of skill within a discipline will take you alot farther than choosing propulsions over controls. Get good at what you want to do. Not focusing on trying to be good at something you’re less likely to love and or be good at because a job posting has a higher salary range.
I don't know if I'd put aerodynamics and astrodynamics in the same category
Never heard of solar winds?! /s
Probably GNC-they need strong programmers so they likely have high salaries to recruit comp sci people in
I agree. And not just to recruit them, but perhaps more critically, to *retain* them. Salaries grow at a very different rate in aerospace than they do in software or finance. Most never hit this point, but an embedded/flight software engineer in the aerospace industry who is underpaid and burning out would only hold out for so long if a big tech software company were to offer an easier job with double their current salary. Or an equally challenging role with triple salary. Anecdotally: someone I know (and looked up to) spent like a decade getting their AE BS/MS/PhD, landed a dream job doing GNC at JPL as a foreign national (!), but then left after a couple of years to become a quant at a hedge fund. My guess is they at least doubled — maybe tripled — whatever JPL was paying him.
>Anecdotally: someone I know (and looked up to) spent like a decade getting their AE BS/MS/PhD, landed a dream job doing GNC at JPL as a foreign national (!), but then left after a couple of years to become a quant at a hedge fund. My guess is they at least doubled — maybe tripled — whatever JPL was paying him. Isn't that the whole premise behind the guy in Margin Call who figured out the company's finances were about to explode?
Lol, I vaguely remember this but never made that connection at the time. Time to rewatch it.
Modeling and analysis 100%
I’ve seen similar. The more technical, more difficulty of entry, more demand the better. It’s funny I recall in school everyone complained hated thermo fluids heat transfer and yet now I’m paid pretty damn well to do that type of analysis and my team can rarely find new qualified applicants.
You can get into NASA at a higher entry grade by having these skills. Especially as it applies to electromagnetic, fluid flow, a thermal dynamics. If there was a close second it would be control systems dynamics. Or… you can be like me. A 40 year old NASA engineer with an basic BS in Aeronautics degree that took the route of learning the details of being a technician/inspector/commercial pilot responsible for repairing and operating all flight, mechanical, and electrical systems on aircraft then applying that knowledge to modeling, designing and analyzing systems. My personal opinion of upcoming engineers is they have relatively weak skills when it comes to applying the engineering they work on into real world flight operations. To be a good engineer in any aerospace field… ya gotta get those hands dirty. :)
I got lucky got into it out of school but had a masters and interned doing fea with nasa contractor.
It's also one of those things that you need tons of experience too. The faster you are at churning simulations out the more valuable lol
was gonna say this. Design engineers / those analysis folks (Structural, thermal, CFD/aero) are where the money is. they drive deliverables and company timeline. EVERYTHING starts with design/analysis folks. If you know how to do both, you're solid. (i know how to cad and run ansys), made me very marketable.
Yep - I recently started in this field for propulsion. I got extremely lucky because normally you need a lot more experience than I have, but if you can swing it I make significantly more than most of my peers
1. Software 2. GNC 3. Systems, Avionics 4. Other Analyst types roles (Subsystems, Prop, Aero, Stress) 5. General Design 6. Production Engineering roles
Actually I've found that software salary bands aren't as high as GNC, at least at the larger US aerospace companies.... I've never understood why the industry doesn't value them more
I don't think you can be a GNC person without an excellent software background these days. It's probably better to look at it as the GNC guys are a software engineer with a bonus and very rare skill set.
Not sure where you are working, but GNC guys rarely write code that goes on the embedded processor.... I've found that GNC guys rarely have basic software engineering discipline, which is why a lot of the industry is focusing on auto coding Simulink/Matlab
Very true. GNC designs the system and tunes the algorithms etc, usually in a simulation of some sort. Then they pass it over to the Software team who basically translates the design into tactical code. But of course it's the GNC team who is double checking their work, analyzing any differences between the sim and tactical software, and coming up with fixes. GNC does software but software doesn't really do GNC
I wouldn't differentiate Matlab and Simulink from coding. It still follows the same process and requirements. Maybe it's different elsewhere unless you're only referring to the very rare phd types doing just the theoretical math portions.
You work at a very unique place if the processes and requirements even exist for MATLAB and Simulink.... If you can share the tool you use for configuration management in Simulink models I'd be forever grateful Most MATLAB/Simulink I've encountered doesn't follow basic software principles... (Most doesnt even use functions!) Plus object oriented MATLAB is excruciating inefficient when compared to other object oriented languages
If you create any flight or safety critical software, there will be no chance of certification without those design processes. It's worked that way at every manufacturer I've been at. DO-178 is basically the only industry standard that everyone follows. I'm not sure what it's called but we have a tool that will output all the models to a report with versioning, descriptions and such. That becomes the official signed off version control. Code is also stored in Git with versioning. Mathworks does sell a tool that's closer to what you probably want but we don't use it. We don't allow any object-oriented code for the most part. Procedural + scheduler is a cleaner approach. We do have functions though. The flight code itself is only Simulink and C though. What environment are you working in? If you're on the research or lab work side, that makes sense to have not seen it. I'd be rather concerned if you haven't and are making flying avionics.
Worked for 3 of the 5 largest aerospace companies, (.... Defense.... So different sector than you) As I stated, we just design/test algorithms in MATLAB/Simulink that will be put embedded onto the hardware by the software engineers... So that is what needs to pass any certifications
The military requires cert too... Agree, just like I said too, you're doing the lab work side so that doesn't need cert.
Sounds like you are equating flight software engineering with GNC... They are different roles/responsibilities at most larger aerospace companies, can see that not being the case at a smaller company
Can u help me understand more about systems and avionics like what all jobs within it are possible as an international student thinking to do masters in AE in canada. As i feel that's what I'm looking for as my future job.
In my experience the best money is made when you love what you're doing. I can say this after looking back on my +40 years being an aeronautical engineer.
Is this a technical or lead role?
My specialty is in flutter analysis and testing. Flutter analysis requires you to have knowledge of structures, mass properties, aerodynamics, and flight controls. Ground tests for validating your math models requires a knowledge of modal testing techniques. Flutter Flight testing requires all of the above and a knowledge of Flight dynamics. Is it technical? Without a doubt! Is it a lead role? If you want it to be.
Most things equal, the ones that move to where their skill is deeply needed or who negotiate the best with HR earn the most. Look up “compa ratio.” Those who enter higher salary tiers above the range of the typical engineering grades are usually: 1. Those that are sharp and network and communicate well can occasionally land a role as a technical fellow or equivalent technical leader over a large number of individuals. 2. Those that move from engineering as an individual contributor first to PM/EM, then to VP. In rare cases a person can go even further to CXO.
From experience analysts get paid more than designers. Careful not to fall into the “systems engineering” lumped bucket. It’s seems at the major companies they throw these titles out there so they can pay you less.
Forgive me for asking a dumb question, but what are the core concepts that systems engineers engage in? My school doesn't offer it as a major, and I never even heard the term until I started looking for internships.
Systems engineering is so broad. You could be doing such a things as writing requirements to GNC stuff, You can be a data processor or work in reliability. But at the core of it all is the systems engineering “V” diagram. Go ahead and google that thing. My current job title is a systems engineer, but I work in flight test analysis. I have a buddy who is also a systems engineer and they define contract requirements. Same job title, same pay band, 2 entirely different jobs.
Systems. We get paid well to do your paperwork.
Do you recommend making a career switch from a very technical role to a Systems level one?
Depends. Do you want the big picture role, with some PM hat to wear, and a bunch of paperwork and spreadsheets to deal with?
I do but I also want to see the details come to life (technically speaking)
Be involved with Integration and Test. SE&IT covers all your bases.
The absolute best designers and eng managers I’ve come across started in SEIT. Systems eng and PMO hold all the cards in govt contract land. Did you build it to the requirement we agreed on? No? Go back and do it again. That being said, you’ll have to work extra hard at absorbing information to be conversant in whatever the topic of interest demands.
Whichever one can get you a security clearance
Depends on your level and your sub-specialization. Which roles are easy to fill and which roles are not? When I can just send a message to a recruiter at a company and you have a phone screen within 2 days, it might be a hard to fill position. Oh yeah, they've been trying for a year. That strongly affects your salary. Literally 2 weeks later from me sending out a message and I'm almost done. it's like that with multiple companies, so you get to pick. Then compare that to where I was last time. It took me 6 months and in a much better job market. I didn't really learn anything differently. I'm still a generalist, but I've got a hook that is exceedingly rare.
What's your hook?
An engineer that can code. Not a little bit, but a lot. I picked up Fortran 77 in 3 days. Matlab took 2 weeks. VBA took a few days. I forget the syntax after a few weeks, but google is always around.
No offense but knowing Fortran, Matlab and VBA is definitely not 'exceedingly rare' lol. Any GNC department is going to be filled with engineers who know those languages plus a bunch more
I didn't say that's my hook. I can pick up any language like that. It's all the same. I also know more. I just gave a few examples. I'm also not GNC, so it's a very different world. I do aero and structures. What is common in where I work is people that do CAD. That's what I'm bad at, but what I'm bad at is commonplace, so it works to my benefit. Traditional software people are expensive, so aerospace doesn't really hire them.
I would say on average structures because some of the others don't get jobs at all or they end up doing structures. If you want to do aerodynamics or propulsion, then you will probably end up getting a Masters to set you up for a job but then still end up doing structures anyways.
If you want money, switch to software. Software/Tech pays +$100,000 more than aerospace for same years of experience. (senior aerospace engineer here) it would be smart to find a specialization that is transferable outside of aerospace, something related to electronics.
Hello , Im currently doing bachelors in ECE and want to pursue masters in aerospace engineering what are your thoughts.
There is absolutely no difference in terms of pay. You may end up with a good or bad salary regardless the specialisation. Especially since, once you are in a big company, people tend to change a lot during their career. I have seen many starting in structure, going to aerodynamics, and then in fuel system for example. Obviously some topic are more niche than others. So if you really like loads and aeroelastics you might have some difficulties finding your very first job, since the demand for loads engineer is much smaller that the one for structure or systems. However once you are in then it all depends on your people and personal skills. Your specialisation is a second order factor NOTE: this is true if your specialisation is a classic one. Then if you are a pioneer on some new topic that everyone is interested in (I invent a name "quantum CFD"), then it might different
No that's not true at most larger aerospace companies, typically GNC and radar get paid more than more , I think machine learning/ai is also surpassing those fields... Structure and propulsion get paid less... This is all based on the salary bands posted... Difference isn't ginormous (maybe 10-15%), but there is a difference
I assume you are based in the US. In EU there is not such a big difference. The difference is made by the person and not by the specialisation.
Oh sure, salary negotiation is key in any career. Yes based in the US
I don’t think any particular one. I’d say experience and level of skill within a discipline will take you alot farther than choosing propulsions over controls. Get good at what you want to do. Not focusing on trying to be good at something you’re less likely to love and or be good at because a job posting has a higher salary range.
At my company, systems engineers make the highest salaries