How can I achieve mastery in a stress engineering role working in the aerospace industry? 4

[EdwardNigma]

Hey all. Recently, I was listening to a podcast with a guest named Scott Galloway. Scott mentioned that the key to building wealth is by finding something we are good at, that has a 90-95% employment rate, and being at the top 10% or better yet 1% of employees which made me think about my situation (ie aerospace engineering has a relatively good employment rate with a large pool of candidates). Scott also stated that finding something we're good at would result in becoming passionate about our job, and not the other way around, and recommended to just sticking to that one job and no side hustles.

I find that I've enjoyed my structural engineering classes in school and, while I'm currently doing a master degree in aerospace structures, I have found that I perform better than others. I try to understand things to an elemental level and find some sort of practicality but I haven't achieved mastery as a stress engineer in the aerospace industry.

Putting things into perspective and looking back, I worked in a machine shop while in college and I was the best across different small companies in the industry. I also noticed that when I threatened to leave to focus more on my studies, I was able to get more money. I'd say a good living for someone without a degree or any formal training. After finishing my degree, I became a design engineer in the aerospace industry. I was close to achieving mastery but didn't stay long enough in my role to master my discipline. I've struggled to advanced faster in my career as I’ve dealt with difficult people working in the industry. I’m a likeable guy outside of engineering but, when I’ve worked in different groups, sometimes I’ll meet a senior engineer who won’t help me learn the role and will throw me under the job with the manager. Keep in mind that I work for a large OEM and there are politics in the corporate world.

Now I work as a stress engineer, as I always wanted to analyze structures against failure modes. I’ve worked on primary structures, interiors, and other structures but I don’t feel like I’ve mastered my job. I am a hard worker but, although I have lacked mentorship, I am now in a good stress engineering group with potential.

So, the question I have is, how can I achieve mastery in working as a stress analyst in the aerospace industry? What steps should one take to become better? Looking beyond the corporate world bureaucracy and lack of pay by staying in the same job instead of job hopping, I would like to excel in my role to see I can achieve more passion and relatively speaking good compensation for my work.

 

[SWComposites]

Find a good group or company to work in. If not in one, move.
Get on new airplane programs; they are the most challenging but you learn the most.
Find good mentors. You have to seek them out, they don’t have time to find you. Any ask good, well thought out questions.
Learn to help other engineers.
Keep learning - read papers, texts, reports, test reports, old stress analyses, whatever. Get copies of Roark, Bruhn, and Peery texts and study them.
Learn to do stress analysis by hand. Understand load paths, load cases, material behavior. Do not really on FEA for everything, its just a tool.
Learn how to write effectively. Learn how to present effectively.
Competence, if it ever comes, comes with time and experience. Its just reality. Until you have gone thru a complete new airplane program or two you really won’t understand the myriad of details in the engineering process. It has to be experienced, it can’t be taught.

 

[GregLocock]

I don't doubt that there are highly paid stress analysts, but the good ones I know are paid about the same as any skillful experienced engineer.

Most FEA-ers haven't worked in a lab doing stress measurements or modal analysis or fatigue tests. As a result they can often be surprisingly clueless about the implications of their modelling techniques. At the very least you need to talk to your test people to get better correlation with reality.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[MintJulep]

You need to find a project or role where your work is challenged by outside experts.

Working inside a bubble with mentors that grew up in the same bubble risks falling prey to "we've always done it this way" syndrome.

 

[SWComposites]

Agree with both replies above; I forgot to add those.
Go out to the factory and see how things are actually built and assembled. It is NOT like it is shown in CATIA or the FEM.
Go to the lab and witness tests. Materials and parts behave differently from what is idealized in a FEM. Sometime subtly, sometimes not.
Make presentations to and work with customers and regulators.
Get very familiar with the applicable certification regulations and guidance documents.
Learn when you need to check for buckling. Its often overlooked.
Learn to draw proper, balanced free body diagrams of loads on parts and assemblies.

 

[zeusfaber]

Remember that wherever "politics" is in play, you are inevitably a part of that. Alongside the technical skills, learn the soft skills (that are different in a workplace than in a social setting) that will mark you out as an ally, rather than a threat

 

[EdwardNigma]

Thanks guys. Sounds like I want to stay in the group until I become proficient but move to another group working on development or leave to another company.

 

[EdwardNigma]

@GregLocock So, in my company, most engineers cap at around 165k give or take (level 4). That's where I see most making the same. A few are able to up to the higher level engineering roles (level 5 or 6) that would pay them over 200k. With that said, I'm starting to see a handful of engineers that don't know much and are labeled senior or subject matter experts.

Maybe what Scott Galloway meant in the podcast I listened to is for someone like myself to start in an engineering role, achieve mastery, but then assume a leadership role and do the same. From observation, many engineers end up becoming technical managers which may lead to an executive level. However, for now, my interest is just to excel in my role and I'm not too worried about the pay.

 

[IRstuff]

Scott mentioned that the key to building wealth is by finding something we are good at, that has a 90-95% employment rate, and being at the top 10% or better yet 1% of employees which made me think about my situation (ie aerospace engineering has a relatively good employment rate with a large pool of candidates).

This merely the tip of the iceberg; you still need to spend less than you make and you need to make sound investments. There are tons of people with high-paying jobs and live paycheck to paycheck, because they've not learned to live below their means and not learned to save. Likewise, there are tons of people who have built some level of wealth without needing a high-paying job; they have iron disciplines on spending and saving. If you are not at least matching your employer matching limits on your savings and are not saving at least 20% of your salary, you need to do work there as well.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[EdwardNigma]

@IRstuff You bring up a very good point. This is something I need to work on even more. I took out student loans while in my undergrad career and I'm still paying those off. Also, I come from a family of immigrants and my dad left me with some debt before he passed away. I don't want to get into the details of that but I am working towards clearing every debt I have. I don't spend too much on clothes, trips, car (drive an old car but will replace it soon), but I do like to go out to restaurants maybe twice a week, drink socially, and I am expecting a baby. My SO has been good about helping me out with finances. She cooks often for us, cleans the house, etc. We both make sufficient money but we live in a high cost of living area. I think things are going to get hard before they become better for us.

 

[Heaviside1925]

OP,
I am not meaning this as slight. I am assuming you are a native English speaker and if so, if I was reviewing a candidate and they started talked about mastery, becoming a master or mastering a certain field, I'd likely be polite and move on to the next candidate. I think even the most seasoned subject matter expert would honestly admit that no field is ever mastered, it's just for this area, within this certain field, they are more well versed than most. I did a quick google search into Mr. Galloway and he's a marketing and branding "expert", so goes the logical conclusion, he has marketed his ideas to you. In your first paragraph you stated the key to building wealth is by finding something we are good at yet you have stated multiple times, it's not about the pay but the knowledge. These two things, wealth and knowledge, are not equal but not exclusive either. We humans value on an intrinsic and extrinsic basis, we also like to make the subjective as objective as we can. It terms of judging someone's knowledge on an extrinsic objective basis, we assign merit. In the commercial realm, merit is assigned in the form of pay and advancement. In an academic setting it's partially about pay and advancement but more so on papers published and awards/accolades received. I feel you are looking for external acknowledgement or are asking how to get it, for your knowledge, in the commercial/business space without pressure of feeling like you need to advance in responsibility. Bear in mind, that as long as you are an employee, you are a tool for your management to complete a certain task or perform a certain role. If you are asked to advance, it has nothing to do with you mastering the level you are at but only an acknowledgement from your management that you show the aptitude to be given the opportunity to work at a higher level of responsibility. The only true masters I have met have been in an academic setting and they care neither for merit or recognition but only passion in their field of research. Thier mastery comes not from specificity but from a broad and comprehensive understanding of a wide range of subjects and fields. In the early days, these folks were described as polymaths and through this school gave us some of the most amazing minds in modern history. Many whom reply to posts on this specific forum mention repeatedly about getting "more tools in your toolbox". If your passion is truly only to become the best stress engineer you can be, then "hitch your boat" to someone whom you consider to be an expert stress engineer, even if they are in another field or industry. If even after multiple mentorships, you still feel there is more you want to learn, then academia may be the place for you. I feel you will find that as you continue in acquiring knowledge, you will be required to become proficient in many other areas of engineering and science.
In summation, try to refrain from using mastery, master and mastering in a professional setting when describing yourself.

 

[EdwardNigma]

@Heaviside1925 Thanks for your response. When I used the word mastery, I wasn't really speaking literally. Galloway's statement is just something that made me think. I listen to a variety of people so I don't have my views set on what he says. I actually disagree with many of his statements but that's getting sidetracked. What I meant is as an engineer who's a SME. Being close to the top 10% of engineers is more appropriate but that's hard to achieve and requires time.

At this point in time, I would like to become a better engineer. I do notice some people excel more than others and would like to learn from them. Sometimes, getting information from people at work has been hard as not everyone is willing to share their knowledge for a variety of reasons. Looking back, I've made many mistakes. It helps to put things into perspective and get insight from others. The same information can be communicated in a slightly different way and it makes more sense to me. I just need some advice in a minimalist type of way. A good example in a different application is exercise which I am knowledgeable of. If someone were to want to lose weight, for example, they think more is better, cardio, go from 0 to 100, and what not. I'd keep it simple if I were to give advice on that. I'd tell someone, don't do cardio, weight train 2-3 times a week to increase metabolism, walk 10 minutes outside after each meal, and focus on protein in your diet. That alone would make most men drop down to 12% body fat if they're patient and trust the process. I don't have these nuggets of information in stress engineering but people here have brought up good points and/or advice that I'll try. Another example is some advice I received by an engineer turned executive in my first company. When I first started working as an engineer, he recommended I spend like 5 years doing detailed design or analysis. Then, he recommended doing the same at a systems level but, during all this time, he suggested working a bit harder than my peers so as to be the better employee in my group. After that, he said, you can become a manager, a more senior engineer, or something along those lines. This is something I tried to do throughout my career but it hasn't been easy.

 

[CWB1]

I'd second and expand the suggestion to get into the lab...

IME there are two very different ways analysis is used to develop products.
1. More typically, FEA/CFD is used to guesstimate the answer to a specific design problem for a specific product. A prototype is then built, tested against marketing's spec sheet for performance and durability, and the analyst does little beyond tweaking and rerunning the existing model if problems arise.
2. Less common is developing a model to understand trends affecting the full range of hypothetical products, validating it via multiple prototypes (or a very flexible test rig), and using that model for multi-generational product planning.

The second will teach you a LOT more than the first but often is viewed as wasteful by management, so may require moving to a more progressive employer.

 

[Heaviside1925]

OP,
In spite of being very bright people, engineers can be horrible communicators. Try to keep this in mind when trying to learn from someone. The technique of asking a bunch of questions may do more to annoy the person than illicit any meaningful information. Sometimes it's just watching and listening, other times it's asking what books you read to acquire what you know. To echo CWB1's suggestions. Hands on is so important. Try some old designers, machinists or productions engineers because even though they may not know all the physics behind stress they have an intrinsic sense of how it works, how its transferred and if they can explain it to you in principals common to their craft, you can apply it to your work with the knowledge base you have.

 

[EdwardNigma]

@CWB1 and Heaviside1925, you guys bring up some good and interesting points. I'm definitely going to explore this.

 

[IRstuff]

I don't think it's necessary to be a master of anything, actually; there are tons of people that do that already and are good at it. But, that's the problem, they're good at a ridiculously narrow field and often have difficulty merging that knowledge with everyone else's knowledge, so there's something to be said about having a "master of none" category that can do the multidisciplinary thing. When coupled with good communications skills and rigorous honesty, that can be an extremely useful career.

That might not be for you, but it's served me very well; I'm happily retired and did my due diligence in savings and investment. Nothing fancy, mostly index funds, but I did have one spectacular success in buying NVDA in 2005, but that's also survivorship bias, given the myriad of stocks that sank into nothingness and stayed there; I even considered NVDA to be a loser, given the high premium I paid for it and the 15 years of it languishing in the cellar.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[SWComposites]

OP,
Why do I keep getting the feeling that you are linking “mastery” with “wealth”? Maybe I am wrong.

It is really not clear what advice you need, other than “just do your job in the best way possible every time”, and “keep learning new skills and knowledge every day”.

 

[GregLocock]

I doubt many (as a proportion) engineers get wealthy from their day jobs. Maybe a few coders at FAANG can pull off FIRE without actively budgeting, for the rest of us we just do "The millionaire next door" "Barefoot Investor" or whatever path takes your fancy.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[IRstuff]

I doubt many (as a proportion) engineers get wealthy from their day jobs. Maybe a few coders at FAANG can pull off FIRE without actively budgeting, for the rest of us we just do "The millionaire next door" "Barefoot Investor" or whatever path takes your fancy.

I guess that depends on what you define as "wealthy." I would think that being a millionaire (excl. house) ought to qualify, since that would put you in the top 12.5% of net worth in the US. If you're over $1.5M, you're in the top 10%.

I think most FAANG programmers don't even really need to budget THAT much; I've heard of $500k+ salaries for people 10 years in.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[EdwardNigma]

Hey guys, when I used the word wealth, it was to put things into perspective. It was more of The Millionaire Next Door type of wealth, if you've ever read that book, so think making a comfortable living with a rewarding job and living under your means. I wasn't seeking a salary as a software engineer or something alike. With that said, my questions were meant to be more about performing well as an engineer, not building wealth.