How do you recruit?

[Genghis the Engineer]

I have to be careful here not to upset the rules on advertising, but I'm trying to recruit a professional Engineer. So could I just say, I'm not fishing for anything but advice.

So far I've advertised in FI, two well known websites (both of which have been mentioned on Pprune), and two GA magazines, one of which is found in WH Smiths. In total I've had two applicants, neither of whose CV's show much likelihood that they could do the job at-all.

Does anybody have any handy hints as to where to find job-hunting engineers (not technicians)?

G

[Pengineer]

What you looking for? Avionics? A+C? Where?What types etc?

Oh, whats the dosh?

[ragspanner]

The best bet is personal recommendation , that is ask the people who work for you. This works well on two counts, firstly it should be the case that you can trust them or you would not employ them, secondly the wastage of people who drop out at the interview is reduced as the have been given the 'warts n' all' lowdown. If this does not work try the recruitment agency route.

[Blacksheep]

Ghengis,

Poaching Tech Services people? I should have you shot Sir! :)

Actually we only have one in our office and you can't have him for another two years. In the meantime, since I know you go there, have you tried the bar down at the RAeS? Not joking, I reckon its as good a starting point as any. Does the CEI register have information on professional engineers who are on the job market? There doesn't seem much point in maintaining a register of engineers unless its put to practical use...

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Jango]

As Ragspanner was saying, word of mouth is best start. Put the word out through the contacts you have, even thru pprune! There is always someone out there looking.

Problem with advertising is that guys can still miss it. On hols, off shift, or what ever, you do not always get to read the back pages.

Put the word out, try RAES mag, try ALAE, or just put the word in pprune and see what you get.

------------------
Old age and treachery will always triumph over youth and enthusiasm.

[Genghis the Engineer]

As I said, I'm after an Engineer not a technician (CEng / IEng) to do design investigation work, so the ALAE is unlikely to help me much. But I think if I get no joy on this round the RAeS rag might be a good idea. If all else fails, I might have to go round the Universities and find a good graduate, but if I had the time to train one, I probably wouldn't be advertising!

G

[spannersatcx]

Funny it says on both of my Licences - Licenced Aircraft Maintenance ENGINEER
So there!

[Pengineer]

Mine too say "ENGINEER"..
Sorry I missed the two clues in your original post,
clue one: 'professional engineer' as opposed to the mere amateur engineers that frequent this forum.
Clue two: 'Job-hunting engineer' as in the types that are not licensed aircraft ENGINEERS.
Apologies for any confusion but in this forum 'engineer' usually refers to LAME, technicians are unlicenced hence not ENGINEERS.
Suggest you try your old Alma Mater, failing that, Burgerking or McDonalds.
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/FarSMadProf.gif

[This message has been edited by Pengineer (edited 20 June 2001).]

[Blacksheep]

Come on chaps, back off; Ghengis's post was quite clear. He is looking for a Design Engineer rather than a Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. I have a licence too but don't issue many Certificates of Release these days - Technical Services work is different from Maintenance but we are all working towards the same result. Maybe we'd ALL be better off financially if we stuck together as a profession instead of squabbling over names...

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[spannersatcx]

It was tongue in cheek - as I've seen the Engineer v Technician arguement here before, but he did say "I'm trying to recruit a professional Engineer" and then afterwards "I'm after an Engineer not a technician" just saying that We are profesional and Engineers as well.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I know this is only semantics, but

http://www.engc.org.uk/gateway/0/Sect213.rtf

By which what you chaps, who are highly qualified and professional LAMEs would be defined as Engineering technicians. I don't think this is anything to be ashamed of. But as I tend to use the terminology a "professional engineer" is a besuited graduate, rather than a highly trained individual in overalls.

IMHO, somebody without qualifications is not a technician, he has not earned the term. At my last place of employ they were called "experimental workers".

Yes, I know that I am at odds with the terminology used in large chunks of the aircraft industry, but not with the Engineering industry as a whole.

Whatever, the bottom line is that I need somebody to investigate new aircraft designs, not build or fix existing ones.

Thanks for the help anyway chaps.

G

[H721]

i did aero/fluid dynamics, strength/mechanics of materials, aircraft design & structures,....at school. even if i have the choice, i still choose what i'm now. working ship-side is more enjoying, satisfying (forget about the heat, wet....). we are true ENGINEERS! i'm proud of what i'm.

disregard my signature this time. :)

------------------
Not much of an engineer

[Pengineer]

Thanks genghis, I'm now an engineering technician, I'll remember this and act accordingly if I bump into you and your pals during rag week.
I don't care what term "by which what you chaps" from the academy think we should be called, My licence, payslip, and colleagues call me an engineer.
As regards the 'professional' versus LAME argument, lets meet outside Barclays at the end of the month and 'compare notes' to see which of is deemed more valuable to the industry.
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/FarSgoof.gif
Now must get on with my dissertation so I can get promoted to the McNugget section.

[Blacksheep]

I'm a besuited graduate too Ghengis, but not in engineering. By engineering qualification I'm a technician and I still have a pair of greasy overalls in my bottom drawer too. But it DOES say "Aircraft Maintenance Engineer's Licence" on the top of my Maroon Book so I am legally described as an LAE or Licenced Aircraft Engineer. We have been described as such since Licence No 1 was issued by the ARB back in 1919 or something, when there wasn't a CEI or register of engineers and technicians. I feel that you Chartered Engineers hi-jacked the title Engineer when perhaps you ought to have come up with another name. Technologists perhaps? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif Whatever... My brother is a Chartered Civil Engineer, you are I believe a Chartered Mechanical Engineer, others are Chartered xxxx Engineers. If only everybody used the full designation it would help to avoid confusion. But who cares? In Britain Engineers of any kind are generally regarded as "low life" no matter how we call ourselves.

Licenced Aircraft Maintenance Engineer or Chartered Engineer we are all, I hope, professionals. I like to think that I am anyway. :) Before we can improve our public image we must first unite as a profession, then publicise what we actually do and how much society owes its current standard of living to engineering professionals.

The argument becomes academic anyway, once we all work under JAR 66 and are officially described as Technicians.

"Engineering - Making the world a better place!"

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Pengineer]

Genghis, My dictionary says a professional is someone who gets paid for what they do, so it could be argued that if someone gets more than another person in the same profession, they must be more professional.
At a guess you won't be paying your new recruits anything in the region UK£50k+.
In fact please humour me, how much do you intend to pay them (approx will do)?
LAMEs are ENGINEERS by act of parliament.
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/FarSgoof.gif

Right, I'm off to work now to do some technicianing, acouple of thousand people are depending on me again today.
Have a safe one guys and gals, even you genghis.



[This message has been edited by Pengineer (edited 22 June 2001).]

[Genghis the Engineer]

Maybe you're right and the Chartered Institutions have tried to Hijack the term Engineer. I don't know - in France or Germany, or even the USA, this confusion doesn't seem to occur. I think this is a UK only issue so far as I can see. As you say, if we used full terms Chartered, Maintenance, etc, Engineer we wouldn't have a problem. I was in the Czech republic recently where they used the term "technician" to apply to a highly educated professional. When I was at BDN the (highly qualified) people working on aircraft were craftsmen, and the senior engineer running the hangar was simply known as "The Engineer".

What do I do then about BT who insist on calling the chap who comes to put in a phone line an Engineer, or the local council who call dustmen Sanitary Engineers. Hands up who wants to be associated with them?

And I'm anticipating paying the chap about £25k; nobody in the organisation I work for, including the CEO, makes anything near £50k.

I apologise if I gave the impression that a professional Engineer doesn't include an LAME. I'll haggle over the term Engineer, but if you weren't professional (by definition or outlook) you wouldn't be doing the job. And no doubt some of you make more money then me too, bastards!

G

[Genghis the Engineer]

Re-reading Blacksheeps comments another thought comes to me.

Yes I am a Chartered Mechanical Engineer. The IMechE only allows CEng's (or potential CEng's) in, and insists that everybody else goes and joins another organisation.

I'm also a Chartered Aeronautical Engineer. The RAeS is quite happy to make full members or fellows a CEng, IEng, Eng.Tech, or for that matter aviation lawyers, artistc etc. (even Richard Branson) and at one point (until shot down in flames by the ETPS mafia) was considering Chartered Test Pilots. A rather different attitude, where your status in your organisation and the industry is rather more important than your specific function.

Maybe a lot of this debate comes down to our being in a "dual-nationality" region, between professional engineering, and professional aerospace.

Anybody wanna job?

G

[HiSpeedTape]

Umm... No Thanks. Not for £25k!

[Max Profit]

....Is that per week or per month?

[Genghis the Engineer]

So will somebody explain to me why designing, building and testing aeroplanes pays so much less than maintaining and flying them?

G

[spannersatcx]

Building/designing them's the easy bit it's fixing them when they've been broken that's the difficult bit!

[SchmiteGoBust]

Couldn't agree with you more Spanners. Done both designing and fixing and found fixing to be much more challenging. It's also more interesting and pays better!!!Worst job I ever did was redesigning parts of aircraft that graduates with no practical experience had magicked onto the drawing board. Most of them knew the square of a jam jar, but couldn't get the lid off!!! :)
Most annoying thing was they kept referring to the lads on the shop floor as "Grunts". Only did it once in front of me though. :mad:

Schmite the Engineer.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I would mention that I already said I don't want a graduate, they need several years training before they're any good to anybody.

G

[john_tullamarine]

Chaps,

The semantics argument really is quite tedious - albeit that it continually gets dragged up. For good or bad, in most regions, the "engineer" term is unprotected and can be used by just about anyone. As a consequence it is of questionable value in those regions. In some places, eg Queensland in Australia, the term is protected and you have to hold an RPEQ ticket to use certain engineering titles.

Genghis was talking about chaps and chapesses who have, or can pick up, MRAeS, CEng (or better) tickets .. as he hasn't had much luck with us lot (the thought of wearing suits again doesn't appeal) ... he now is looking at the several years out graduate sort.

To put it into an appropriate perspective, however... following graduation, I worked in a manufacturer's design team in several areas and, being a keen young chap, thought that I knew a lot more than I did.

Subsequently, out on my own in the big bad world, I discovered just how valuable the experienced LAME was. I have no hesitation in saying that the great majority of my design work since then has benefitted from much regular input from the guys on the floor.

I like the suggestion raised earlier .. we are all on the same side ... all working toward the same goal ...

[This message has been edited by john_tullamarine (edited 27 June 2001).]

[Genghis the Engineer]

To emphasise JT's point, I've just got back from 2 days at the JAA. Points under discussion were various aspects of aircraft certification and design.

The meetings consisted entirely of graduate Engineers of varying levels of experienced (from about 5yrs to 40) from various countries, not a professional AME or pilot in sight. Is it any wonder the place is a mess, there are a lot of disciplines out there and if we don't work effectively together, we shall fail to work effectively separately.

However I am going to stick my head over the parapet (and I've done plenty of aircraft servicing thanks chaps) and say that there is nothing more challenging than dealing with a complete aircraft design from scratch and getting it fit for service. My opinion, no doubt others will disagree.

And I have AMEs and pilots on the team when I do.

G

[john_tullamarine]

Hear, hear Genghis ...

I'm sure that we all have anecdotes relating the problems which arise from the left hand not knowing what the right is doing. In some cases I wonder if the left even knows that the right exists ...

I can recall one expensive oversight many years ago in a certain operation where there was little formal talkie talkie between operations, maintenance, and engineering.

In respect of a particular optional mod, maintenance, as was the then done thing, reviewed it and, deciding it really didn't warrant embodiment, filed it. And, from a maintenance viewpoint, that was a quite reasonable decision.

Operations, on the other hand, had they known about the mod, would have required its embodiment purely on operational risk management grounds.

The upshot was that, some time later, the problem which the mod addressed occurred. The possible undesirable outcome did, in fact, occur, and the bird was out of service for a while ... while some expensive repairs were effected.

Very much a case of a stitch in time ...

This particular mishap shaped my since held view that, in any operation, if all management stakeholders don't have a responsibility to signoff on all relevant and vaguely relevant - even only might be relevant, matters, then screw ups will continue to occur. Each of us look at the matter with differently tinted glasses and perspectives .. and no one individual or group has the monopoly on wisdom and insight.

[This message has been edited by john_tullamarine (edited 28 June 2001).]

[spannersatcx]

JT, that seems to be a company failing, I guess now everyone gets involved. The airline I work for failed to take up certain options (bloody beancounters) purely on cost, rather than any other reason the omition of which makes my job that bit more difficult sometimes.
Certainly on the 777 design Boeing invited airline maintenance and others to have an input on some aspects of the design phase.
Are'nt modifications issued due to design failings!
As Gengis says he gets great satisfaction from designing from the first rivet up, whereas I get the same from fixing it when broken. Horses for courses, we all have a roll to play in this industry as and said the more collaboration at the outset the better it would be in the long run.

[john_tullamarine]

Indeed .. they are no more ...

I think you might be being a little harsh on the designers. Sometimes things crop up in service which might not reasonably have been predicted. But, then again, that is not always the case, is it ?

[Blacksheep]

JT,

Optional mods are indeed a problem. In my own engineering section we do our best to recognise those that may have an operations bearing and run them by Flight Ops. We have a good working relationship with Operations who actually send representatives to participate in our weekly engineering department meeting. The Fleet Technical Captains for each fleet are regular and welcome visitors to engineering and we all know each other well.

Unfortunately, as you are obviously aware, we are probably an exception to the rule. Nevertheless we still suffer from errors and omissions; SBs that would be useful are missed, ADDs stay in the log too long and so on; nothing is perfect. But it is essential that we all do our best to maintain professionalism and work together. Engineers, Technicians, Mechanics, yes and even Pilots!

"Engineering - making the world a better place."

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Pdub]

Genghis, was going to suggest an advert in Racecar engineering, as I know a lot of aeronatical blokes that have gone into race car design, but I'm afraid your hopes of paying a 25k year salary do not get you a graduate with experiance in the real world.
Try running the ad again without a salary, and find out how much the applicants are on.
The design engineers I know, 5 years into the job are on more than that.

[john_tullamarine]

Blacksheep,

One very simple procedure... every document which has to be reviewed has a signoff sheet (over and above any meetings etc) which has to be signed off by each section manager - including general and financial management.

In this way, the information is routinely brought to the attention of each section. How the individual manager might process that information for assessment prior to signing off on it is another matter but the opportunity is there to do a better job.

This doesn't preclude, of course, the more relevant sections specifically bringing individual matters to the attention of the group by the usual means.

Perhaps an overkill and definitely a cost item ... but I have seen numerous screw ups which might have been prevented by such a philosophy. A case of balancing the immediate against the longterm costs, I guess.

[This message has been edited by john_tullamarine (edited 29 June 2001).]

[Cyclic Hotline]

In the States, an engineer is a train driver! ;)

[Blacksheep]

JT,

That's the way we do it. One problem is that with signatories being busy individuals, circulation can lead to delay. Flight Ops being worst, with technical captains often disappearing down-route for two weeks at a time. We have to limit the throughput in some way. When I mentioned earlier that our fleet technical captains are frequent and welcome visitors to engineering I didn't mean that they walk round the hangar, with beaming smiles on their faces. ( Wipe that grin off your face Cap'n Andy! ) They sit in my office, drink my expensive imported coffee (hint hint!) and thrash out difficult problems face to face. The best way to maintain an understanding surely?

With two airframe types, three engine types and their related components we get through 30 to 40 Service Bulletins a week. Then another 30 or 40 Service Letters plus all-operators telexes, fleet team digests and configuration change notices. Airlines simply cannot afford to do them all, we have to pick out the useful ones and reject those that have no obvious benefit. Senior Managers' time is too valuable for them to read everything, so they employ us 'experts' to filter out what we think they don't need to know. The work keeps a whole team of people busy full time in our office. Although sometimes, perhaps inevitably, we get it wrong, we do get it right most of the time. I think our team are professional engineers, but then I'm biased.

BTW, all this talk about what is or isn't professional or who is or isn't an engineer has led us a fair way off-topic hasn't it? Let's hope that we got one thing straight. If Ghengis wanted an engineering professional instead of a professional engineer, then this is certainly the right place for him to find one. :)

"Trust me, I'm a professional" :)

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[This message has been edited by Blacksheep (edited 29 June 2001).]

[Genghis the Engineer]

At Pax river they have an interesting method called a "Murder Board".

At re-determined intervals the signatories all get together for a day / half-day / whatever and all the current jobs are tabled.

Each one is bashed out in turn, with the originator there to defend or discuss it. he is then sent off with a list of amendments, which can usually be incorporated in a day, and then just walked round for immediate signature.

I'm not convinced that I've got any closer to recruiting anybody, but it's been an interesting discussion. The problem with GA is that there's no money down here, we all work here cos it's fun.

G

[lame]

The other day I met a good friend of mine who is a genetic engineer. He was happy to tell me of his job. His latest project
is the splicing of DNA from different specie of birds.

First he combined the DNA from a pheasant and a hen. It worked! He called it a "Phen."

Next he successfully combined a pheasant and a goose. He called it a "Phoose."

Yesterday, he explained, he finally was able to mix a pheasant and a duck. He called it...

"Charlie."




------------------
"I USED to be a PPRuNaholic, but now I'm CURED"

[blondeair]

Back to the original request....A good place to advertise for Design Engineers is the Daily Telegraph on a Thursday.....seems to be a place they look!

[ottiss]

have you penis's had four years of colege probably not so you cannnnn nnnnooooottt call your lazy ass a engineer

[Blacksheep]

Ah! At last a Professional Engineer has joined in the discussion. Welcome friend!

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[martini lemon]

at least LAEs can spell College and did it take you four years at College to learn the plural of penis?

[4Rvibes]

Yep, of course it's penii.
To Ottiss a word of advice, if pissed, don't post. (Unless you were being ironic of course)

[Genghis the Engineer]

I think that 4 years at College makes you a graduate, it takes a bit more to become an Engineer. Spelling is, it should be admitted, usually post-graduate training.

I'm in a good mood today, I had an application from somebody who actually looks like they could do the job.

Good point BE, that's the one day of the week I always buy the Torygraph.

G

[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 05 July 2001).]

[dovetail]

Dear Genghis the Engineer,

I recently recruited via www.totaljob.com (http://www.totaljob.com)

Posting an ad with them for a month turned up many suitable applicants from all over the world. So if you are specific in your requirments stated in your advert, you will streamline the response - hence less time wasted sifting through CV's to find them un-acceptable.

It certainly worked for me, and I would certainly use this medium again.

dovetail

[Genghis the Engineer]

Thanks for that Dovetail, I shall bear it in mind.

Interestingly, about 6 weeks after it ran, I'm starting to get applications from some quite reasonable talent from around the world from an advert in Flight International. I really didn't expect quite such a "lag" between advertising and CV's hitting my desk.

What does surprise me is that, although I was very specific about the need for somebody with design and airworthiness experience, the very high proportion of people applying with only maintenance experience. Often very high quality people, but lacking the specific skills to do this job. (Also people who think that a Dornier 228 or Twin Otter is a light aircraft!).

G

[Pengineer]

Thats because they are light aircraft!