What Top Aerospace Employers Look for in New Hires

Technical Competencies and Engineering Foundations

Core proficiency in aerospace-specific engineering disciplines

When aerospace employers in Los Angeles and San Diego evaluate candidates, they’re looking for engineers who understand the unique demands of flight, propulsion, and structural integrity. This isn’t just about having an engineering degree. Top aerospace firms need people who’ve actually grappled with the physics and mathematics that keep aircraft in the sky.

Aeronautics, propulsion systems, and structural analysis are the foundation. Candidates who can speak intelligently about lift coefficients, thrust-to-weight ratios, and fatigue analysis already stand out from the crowd. But here’s what matters most: experience solving real problems in these domains.

Have you designed a component that had to withstand extreme thermal conditions? Analyzed flutter characteristics for a wing section? These are the conversations that get hiring managers’ attention.

Defence contractors and aerospace manufacturers are particularly keen on engineers with backgrounds in systems that demand precision and reliability. Whether it’s fixed-wing aircraft, rotorcraft, or unmanned systems, the core disciplines remain consistent. Companies want people who understand not just the theory, but the practical constraints of manufacturing, testing, and certification that come with aerospace work.

Experienced aerospace professionals know that breadth matters alongside depth. While specialization is valuable, employers also seek engineers who can grasp how aerodynamic design impacts propulsion efficiency, or how structural choices affect flight dynamics. This systems-level thinking becomes critical as you move beyond entry-level roles into more responsible positions across the sector.

Mastery of CAD software and digital modeling tools

Ask any aerospace hiring manager what technical skill separates competitive candidates from the rest, and CAD proficiency will be in the top three answers. CATIA, CREO, and NX dominate the aerospace industry (not Fusion 360 or similar consumer tools). If your experience is limited to generic modeling platforms, you’ll need to invest time building credibility with industry-standard software.

But technical competency with CAD goes beyond clicking buttons. Employers want engineers who understand design intent, parametric modeling, and how digital models translate into manufacturing reality. Can you create geometry that a machinist can actually build? Do you grasp tolerance stacking and how downstream processes depend on precise model definition? These details separate junior contributors from the mid-to-senior level talent that aerospace firms are actively recruiting.

Digital modeling tools have expanded beyond CAD. Finite element analysis (FEA) software like ANSYS, ABAQUS, and NASTRAN are standard in structural and thermal analysis roles. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tools like FLUENT are essential for propulsion and aerodynamics work. Candidates with hands-on experience running simulations, interpreting results, and iterating designs based on analysis findings are in high demand across Los Angeles and regional defence contractors.

What makes a candidate truly competitive? Demonstrating not just software knowledge, but the judgment to know which tool solves which problem. An engineer who can design a part in CAD, run a finite element analysis to validate it, and then iterate based on results shows the kind of integrated problem-solving that aerospace teams need.

Understanding of systems integration and complexity management

Aerospace systems are brutally complex. A modern aircraft might have millions of components, thousands of suppliers, and interconnected systems where a failure in one area cascades to others. Employers want engineers who’ve navigated this complexity and understand how to work within it.

This means more than just knowing your discipline. It means understanding how aerodynamic decisions impact avionics integration, how structural choices affect weight and performance, and how manufacturing constraints influence design. Candidates who’ve worked on cross-functional teams where they had to communicate with structures engineers, avionics specialists, manufacturing engineers, and supply chain partners demonstrate the collaborative thinking aerospace employers value.

Systems integration experience might come from working on subsystems within larger programs, troubleshooting integration issues during testing, or participating in design reviews where you had to defend your work against questions from engineers outside your specialty. This is the kind of experience that helps you understand aerospace as an integrated whole rather than a collection of separate pieces.

Knowledge of regulatory compliance and certification standards

In aerospace, you can’t just build something and hope it works. Every component, system, and process must meet strict regulatory standards. FAA regulations, industry standards like AS9100 and AS9102, and customer-specific requirements shape everything from design to manufacturing to quality control.

Employers value engineers who understand why these requirements exist and how to design with compliance in mind. Have you worked on projects governed by DO-178C (software) or DO-254 (hardware)? Familiar with MIL-SPEC standards?

Experience with design failure mode and effects analysis (DFMEA) or similar compliance methodologies? These are tangible signals that you understand the regulatory landscape.

The hiring teams at top aerospace firms know that engineers without this experience will require significant training. Candidates who can demonstrate compliance awareness, certification familiarity, and experience working within regulated environments reduce onboarding risk and contribute from day one.

Security Clearance and Background Requirements

Eligibility and readiness for government security vetting

If you’re targeting aerospace and defence roles in Southern California, security clearance isn’t just nice to have, it’s often a deal-breaker. Top employers in the Los Angeles and San Diego regions need candidates who understand what government vetting actually involves and can move through it efficiently.

Before applying, assess whether you meet baseline eligibility requirements. You’ll need U.S. citizenship, a valid passport or state ID, and the ability to pass a thorough background investigation.

Most aerospace employers want candidates with no disqualifying criminal history, unresolved financial issues, or substance abuse problems. These aren’t arbitrary restrictions, they’re mandated by the Department of Defense.

Readiness matters more than you’d think. Candidates who’ve already held a clearance, even if it’s expired, move through re-vetting faster. Employers recognize this and actively recruit former military personnel, government contractors, and aerospace industry veterans for exactly this reason. If you haven’t held a clearance before, be prepared for a longer timeline, potentially 6 to 12 months depending on the level required.

Start your vetting process by understanding what level you’re aiming for. Secret clearances cover less sensitive work and involve a lower-level background check. Top Secret clearances, common in advanced aerospace projects, require more extensive investigation. Each level demands progressively deeper scrutiny of your financial history, employment background, and personal conduct.

Understanding classified information handling protocols

Aerospace employers don’t just need people with clearances, they need people who respect classified information like their career depends on it, because it does. Understanding how to handle sensitive material is fundamental to working in defence contracting.

Classified information is compartmentalized for a reason. You’ll handle only what your role requires. That means no discussing projects with colleagues outside your team, no taking notes home, no mentioning work details to friends or family. Violating this isn’t a written warning scenario, it’s a federal offense that ends careers permanently.

Training on classified handling is mandatory. Every defence contractor in the Los Angeles area with government contracts provides NIST compliance training and facility security officer (FSO) briefings. New hires typically complete this within their first week. You’ll learn protocols for secure document storage, proper disposal methods, and how to identify and report security violations.

Physical security matters too. Cleared facilities maintain badge access, surveillance systems, and clean desk policies. Your workspace gets audited. Talking about classified work in unsecured areas, even casually in a cafeteria or parking lot, is a serious violation. Employers test this regularly through security inspections and surprise audits.

Candidates who’ve worked in defence environments before understand these rules intuitively. If you’re entering the sector for the first time, expect to be cautious and ask questions. Employers respect that more than someone who assumes they know the protocols.

Personal background factors that influence clearance timelines

Your personal history directly impacts how quickly you can be cleared. Financial problems, overseas travel, foreign contacts, or previous security violations all trigger extended investigations. Investigators will interview people who know you, review your financial records, and verify employment history.

Travel history matters. Frequent international travel, especially to countries of concern, slows the process. Foreign relatives or ongoing relationships abroad require additional vetting. If you have family living overseas, disclose it upfront, don’t hope it stays hidden.

Financial responsibility is scrutinized heavily. Unpaid debts, bankruptcy, or a pattern of missed payments suggest security risk. The logic is straightforward: financial desperation makes someone vulnerable to bribery or coercion. If your credit is rough, acknowledge it and show what you’ve done to improve it.

Employment gaps need explanation. Clearance investigators want to verify your entire work history. Months of unemployment without clear reason, especially around sensitive job transitions, raise questions. Document where you were and what you were doing during any breaks in employment.

Drug use history is another factor. Even past marijuana use in states where it’s legal federally disqualifies you for defence roles. The Department of Defense maintains strict standards regardless of state law. A single failed drug test or admission of recent use ends your candidacy.

The strategic advantage of pre-cleared candidates

From an employer’s perspective, hiring someone already cleared is like finding gold. They can assign you to classified projects immediately without months of waiting for vetting completion. In fast-moving aerospace sectors, this speed advantage is invaluable.

For candidates, holding an active clearance makes you dramatically more competitive. Aerospace firms in Southern California prioritize pre-cleared engineers and researchers because it reduces project startup time and risk. You command higher salary offers and better job security.

Maintain your clearance by following protocols consistently. Inactive clearances can be reinstated if you haven’t been out of the cleared workforce for more than two years. If you’re considering a career transition away from defence work, understand that coming back later becomes harder.

Build your clearance like an asset. If you’re early in your aerospace career, targeting roles that require clearance positions you for better opportunities and higher compensation long-term. The investment in getting cleared initially pays dividends throughout your career.

Problem-Solving and Innovation Mindset

Demonstrated ability to troubleshoot complex technical challenges

When aerospace employers in Los Angeles and across the country evaluate candidates, they’re not just looking for people who can follow procedures. They want engineers and technicians who can diagnose problems when standard solutions don’t apply, then develop fixes that actually work within the constraints of mission-critical systems.

The reality of aerospace work is this: systems fail in ways nobody predicted. A component behaves differently at altitude than it did in ground testing. A supplier changes a material specification.

Manufacturing tolerances drift. When these moments happen, companies need people who don’t panic or reach for the handbook first—they need problem-solvers who can think through root causes, weigh trade-offs, and propose solutions fast.

Employers look for evidence of this through specific examples in your background. Have you worked on systems that failed and documented how you identified the cause? Did you design a test procedure that uncovered a latent defect?

These concrete examples matter more than claiming you’re a “problem-solver” in a cover letter. Hiring managers in the aerospace and defence sectors want to see your methodology, not just your conclusion.

This skill is particularly critical in San Diego’s growing aerospace ecosystem, where companies supporting defence and commercial programs operate under intense schedule pressure. The ability to troubleshoot efficiently isn’t just an advantage—it’s often the difference between meeting a delivery milestone and missing one.

Creative approaches to aerospace design constraints

Aerospace design isn’t about doing what’s theoretically optimal. It’s about doing what’s possible within dozens of competing constraints: weight limits, thermal environments, electromagnetic interference, manufacturing feasibility, cost targets, and regulatory requirements.

Employers hire people who embrace these constraints rather than resent them. They want engineers who see a problem like “reduce system mass by 15% without exceeding power budget or reliability targets” not as frustrating, but as an interesting puzzle. Innovation in aerospace happens at the intersection of these constraints, not in spite of them.

What does this look like in practice? A mechanical engineer who proposes using an off-the-shelf component in an unconventional way to eliminate a custom part. A systems engineer who restructures the architecture to reduce harness complexity.

An electrical designer who reconfigures power distribution to improve redundancy while lowering cost. These aren’t flashy innovations—they’re practical, creative solutions that meet real business needs.

Employers evaluate this through your past projects. Can you articulate a technical decision you made where you balanced multiple competing factors? When you’ve encountered a design constraint, did you explore multiple approaches before settling on one? This kind of thinking demonstrates maturity and the innovation mindset defence and aerospace companies actively recruit for.

Experience working within strict safety and performance parameters

Unlike most industries, aerospace has zero tolerance for certain types of failure. A bug in software can be patched. A design flaw in an aircraft system can cost lives. This reality shapes everything about how experienced aerospace professionals approach their work.

Candidates who’ve worked in regulated aerospace or defence environments understand this instinctively. They know why certification standards exist. They don’t view safety documentation or testing rigor as bureaucratic overhead—they see it as essential. They’ve lived through design reviews where a single engineer can stop a program because they identified a potential failure mode nobody else considered.

This experience is hard to replicate if you haven’t worked in the sector. If your background is in less-regulated industries, employers still want to see that you understand the principle: uncompromising attention to detail, commitment to traceability, and willingness to accept that aerospace work moves slower because safety requires it.

Hiring teams also look for evidence that you can work with the tools and processes that aerospace companies mandate. Have you used configuration management systems? Do you understand requirements traceability matrices?

Have you participated in failure mode analysis or design assurance reviews? These aren’t just checkbox skills—they demonstrate you can operate within the discipline aerospace demands.

Track record of continuous improvement and optimization

Aerospace companies don’t hire people for a single project or a fixed scope of work. They hire for careers. The best candidates show a pattern of identifying inefficiencies, proposing improvements, and following through on implementation.

This might mean optimizing a manufacturing process you inherited. Identifying test procedures that could be streamlined without sacrificing data quality. Proposing a design iteration that reduces cost or weight in a follow-on production run. These aren’t dramatic changes, but they compound over time and demonstrate you think about your work beyond just getting it done.

Employers in the aerospace and defence sectors specifically value this because programmes run for years. The engineer who consistently finds ways to improve performance, reduce cost, or enhance reliability becomes invaluable. Your track record of continuous improvement tells hiring managers you’ll contribute meaningfully long after your initial onboarding period ends.

Collaboration and Cross-Functional Communication

Effectiveness working across engineering, manufacturing, and quality teams

Aerospace projects don’t happen in silos. A new hire stepping into roles at major Los Angeles and San Diego-area employers needs to function effectively across multiple disciplines simultaneously. Engineers design components, manufacturing brings them to life, and quality teams ensure every part meets unforgiving standards. When these teams communicate poorly, schedules slip and costs balloon.

Top aerospace employers want candidates who’ve experienced this cross-functional reality firsthand. They’re looking for people who understand that a design engineer’s brilliant solution might create manufacturing headaches, and those headaches could cascade into quality delays. The best hires recognize these tensions early and work to bridge them.

What does this look like in practice? A candidate might describe a project where they flagged a manufacturability concern during design review, preventing a costly rework months later. Or they’ve collaborated with quality teams to develop testing protocols that caught critical issues before production ramped up. These aren’t theoretical scenarios—they’re the daily work of aerospace professionals.

Employers assess this capability by asking specific behavioral questions. They want stories about disagreements resolved, feedback incorporated, and outcomes improved. Someone who’s worked in defense or aerospace manufacturing for even a few years has navigated these challenges. They know why quality gates exist and why manufacturing constraints matter to engineering decisions.

Ability to translate technical concepts for non-technical stakeholders

Here’s where many technically brilliant candidates stumble. They can design advanced avionics systems or optimize composite structures, but explaining why their decisions matter to a program manager, a customer’s operations team, or an executive sponsor? That’s a different skill entirely.

Aerospace and defense projects involve stakeholders across business, operations, regulatory, and financial domains. A quality engineer might need to explain why a particular inspection method justifies higher upfront costs to a cost-conscious project lead. A systems engineer might need to describe compliance implications to someone without a technical background. This translation ability separates competent hires from those who truly impact their organizations.

Strong candidates have practiced this regularly. They’ve presented technical findings to non-engineers. They’ve written documentation for audiences beyond their specialty. They understand that aerospace success depends on alignment across functional areas, not just technical excellence within one domain.

Employers test this during interviews by asking candidates to explain their most complex project work. How clearly can they break down the problem? Do they use jargon unnecessarily, or do they adapt their language?

Can they connect technical decisions to business outcomes like schedule, cost, or customer satisfaction? These responses reveal whether someone can truly bridge technical and non-technical worlds.

Experience in matrix organizational structures

Most aerospace companies operate with some form of matrix organization. Project teams, functional departments, program management offices—they all intersect. A single engineer might report to a functional manager while working on multiple project teams simultaneously.

This structure creates ambiguity that frustrates people unprepared for it. Who do you escalate a conflict to? When priorities collide, how do you decide which work comes first? Candidates with matrix experience already understand these dynamics. They’ve navigated competing demands. They know how to influence without direct authority.

Job candidates from defense contractors or large aerospace firms often bring this experience built-in. They’ve worked in environments where success required managing relationships across organizational lines. They’ve learned to identify the actual decision-maker (sometimes different from the formal hierarchy) and build consensus with peers in other departments.

During recruitment conversations, employers specifically ask about matrix experience. They want candidates who won’t be paralyzed by competing priorities but instead will take initiative to clarify roles and align stakeholders. Someone who thrives in a matrix organization accelerates their effectiveness immediately.

Leadership potential and mentoring capabilities

Aerospace employers invest heavily in candidates who show leadership potential, even for individual contributor roles. The industry faces a talent gap, particularly in specialized technical areas. New hires who can develop colleagues create multiplier effects across entire teams.

This doesn’t necessarily mean formal management experience. A senior technician who helps junior engineers master critical processes is demonstrating leadership. An experienced researcher who documents complex procedures for others to follow shows mentoring capability. Candidates who’ve taken junior teammates under their wing, peer-reviewed colleague work, or led technical working groups display the collaborative mindset employers seek.

Organizations across the region prioritize this trait because aerospace has cyclical hiring. When growth accelerates, experienced people must rapidly onboard and develop newer team members. Hiring for leadership potential ensures the organization can scale without losing quality or institutional knowledge.

Attention to Detail and Quality Mindset

Precision in documentation and technical specifications

In aerospace and defence, a single decimal point error can cascade into catastrophic failure. Top employers in these sectors aren’t just looking for people who understand this intellectually. They’re hunting for candidates who live and breathe precision at every level, especially when it comes to documentation.

What does this actually mean? It means you document assumptions clearly. You label units (millimeters versus inches, celsius versus fahrenheit). You timestamp revisions and track version control religiously. You understand that the engineering drawing or technical specification you’re creating today might be referenced by someone troubleshooting a component in-flight five years from now.

Aerospace employers across Los Angeles and San Diego are increasingly strict about this because regulatory bodies like the FAA and DoD demand it. When they review your past work, they’re looking for evidence that you’ve maintained meticulous records, caught discrepancies before they became problems, and communicated technical information clearly to both engineers and non-technical stakeholders.

During interviews, expect questions like: “Tell me about a time you caught an error in someone else’s documentation.” Or: “Walk me through how you organize and maintain technical specifications on a large project.” Your answer should demonstrate systematic thinking, not just thoroughness.

Understanding of zero-defect manufacturing principles

Zero-defect manufacturing isn’t a marketing slogan in aerospace. It’s a survival requirement. The industry operates under the assumption that defects are preventable and that acceptable quality is simply not acceptable.

Employers want candidates who understand the philosophy behind this principle. It’s not about perfection for perfection’s sake. It’s about understanding that in aerospace applications, the cost of a defect downstream is exponentially higher than preventing it upstream.

A faulty solder joint caught in inspection costs hundreds of dollars. That same joint failing in a component traveling at 35,000 feet costs millions and lives.

This means you’ve internalized several core concepts: continuous improvement, root cause analysis, and preventative maintenance. You don’t just fix problems. You understand why they occurred and implement systems to ensure they don’t recur. You’re familiar with methodologies like Six Sigma or lean manufacturing, or at minimum, you understand how these frameworks drive decision-making in manufacturing environments.

Defence contractors and aerospace firms hiring across the region consistently prioritize candidates who have actively contributed to zero-defect initiatives, whether in previous roles or academic projects. If you’ve participated in quality improvement teams or implemented process changes that reduced defect rates, that’s gold on your resume.

Familiarity with quality assurance protocols and testing procedures

Quality assurance in aerospace isn’t a box-checking exercise. It’s integral to every stage of design, manufacturing, and assembly. Top employers expect candidates to understand industry-standard QA frameworks, testing methodologies, and inspection protocols.

This includes exposure to procedures like Environmental Stress Screening (ESS), Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT), and functional performance testing. You should be comfortable with statistical sampling techniques, failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), and traceability requirements. If you’ve worked with ISO 9001 certification processes or AS9100 aerospace-specific standards, that’s a significant advantage.

In practical terms, employers want to see that you understand why components are tested under thermal cycling, vibration, and vacuum conditions. You grasp that testing isn’t about proving products work. It’s about documenting that they work reliably under the worst-case scenarios they’ll encounter operationally.

If your background includes quality engineering, test engineering, or manufacturing support roles, highlight specific testing campaigns you’ve supported. Quantify the number of units tested, success rates, and any process improvements that resulted from your involvement.

Commitment to meeting aerospace industry standards and tolerances

Aerospace tolerances are tight. Measured in micrometers, not millimeters. A 0.005-inch tolerance variance might seem trivial, but in aerodynamic performance or structural integrity, it matters enormously. Employers need candidates who respect these constraints as non-negotiable requirements, not suggestions.

This commitment manifests in how you approach every task. You verify specifications before beginning work. You understand the difference between design intent and manufacturing capability. You know when a tolerance is critical versus when there’s acceptable flexibility. You ask clarifying questions if specifications seem unclear, rather than proceeding with assumptions.

Defence and aerospace organizations throughout Southern California emphasize this during hiring because it reflects both technical competence and professional maturity. Candidates who’ve worked in regulated manufacturing environments, achieved certification in relevant processes, or contributed to tolerance analysis on complex assemblies demonstrate this commitment naturally.

In interviews and assessments, you’ll likely encounter scenarios involving tolerance stack-ups or design trade-offs. Your response should show that you understand not just what the standards are, but why they exist and how deviations impact downstream consequences.

Adaptability and Continuous Learning

Willingness to develop expertise in emerging aerospace technologies

The aerospace sector moves fast. Technologies that were cutting-edge five years ago are now standard, and the next generation of propulsion systems, materials science breakthroughs, and avionics platforms are already in development. Top employers aren’t just looking for people who know today’s tools—they’re hunting for candidates who actively want to master tomorrow’s.

This means demonstrating genuine curiosity about where the industry is headed. Have you followed announcements about hypersonic vehicle programs? Do you understand the implications of additive manufacturing in aircraft component production?

Can you speak intelligently about next-generation cockpit automation or advanced composites? Employers in Los Angeles and San Diego’s aerospace clusters see this kind of engagement as a green flag. It signals that you won’t stagnate in your role.

Practical experience counts here too. If you’ve worked with emerging design tools like digital twin technology or participated in projects involving new manufacturing processes, that’s directly relevant. But even self-directed learning—online courses in AI applications for aerospace, certifications in advanced CAD systems, or deep dives into regulatory frameworks for emerging vehicle categories—demonstrates the mindset these organizations value. They want people who treat their career development as an active responsibility, not something the company does to them.

Agility in responding to program changes and shifting priorities

Aerospace and defense programs rarely follow a straight path. Budget adjustments happen. Customer requirements shift. Technical challenges force pivots. Production schedules compress. The candidates who advance fastest are those who don’t just tolerate this reality—they actually thrive in it.

Agility isn’t about being reactive or lacking conviction. It’s about understanding the mission, staying flexible on the approach, and moving forward with conviction even when the tactical plan changes. In practice, this means: you’ve managed competing deadlines without complaint, you’ve successfully pivoted on a project when new technical data emerged, you’ve collaborated effectively with teams who had to reprioritize mid-stream, or you’ve advocated for a solution while remaining open to better alternatives that came up later.

Defense contractors especially value this trait. Programs operating under strict compliance requirements and funding cycles need people who can adapt their workflow, communication style, and technical approach without losing focus on core deliverables. If you have examples of times you’ve rolled with program changes—especially in high-stakes environments where documentation and traceability matter—those stories are gold in interviews. Employers want proof that you won’t become a bottleneck when circumstances evolve.

Commitment to professional certifications and industry development

The aerospace industry is built on expertise backed by credentials. Whether it’s FAA certifications, AS9100 quality management understanding, Six Sigma training, specialized engineering credentials, or security compliance certifications—formal development shows commitment. Top hires don’t wait for their employer to send them to training. They’re already pursuing relevant certifications on their own dime and time.

This doesn’t mean collecting certificates for vanity. It means strategic investment in credentials that directly enhance your value in the sector. A mechanical engineer pursuing an aerospace-specific quality certification, a project coordinator working toward PMP credentials, or a manufacturing technician completing advanced composite handling training—these moves signal serious intent to grow within the industry.

Many organizations also expect participation in professional societies. IEEE, AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics), or industry-specific forums aren’t just networking opportunities. They’re where you stay current on best practices, emerging standards, and field trends.

Employers notice when candidates can reference lessons learned from conference presentations or industry working groups. It demonstrates that you’re invested in the broader aerospace community, not just collecting a paycheck.

Growth potential for advancing into leadership roles

Aerospace employers are investing heavily in talent development because the industry faces significant generational transitions. Experienced leaders are retiring. New programs are launching.

The organizations that thrive are those building benches of emerging leaders ready to step into supervisory, technical leadership, and program management roles. They actively identify candidates who show both the capability and appetite for advancement.

Growth potential doesn’t mean you need a decade of experience. It means demonstrating the fundamentals: you take ownership of projects beyond your job description, you mentor or guide teammates informally, you think systemically about processes and outcomes, and you communicate clearly with stakeholders at different levels. You show curiosity about how decisions get made in leadership positions.

You ask thoughtful questions about strategy, not just tactics. Whether you’re an engineer, technician, quality specialist, or program coordinator, employers look for people who are preparing themselves for bigger roles even before those roles open up. If you’re serious about an aerospace career in Southern California or beyond, treat every project as an opportunity to develop yourself as a future leader.

That mindset is exactly what the region’s defense and aerospace firms are actively recruiting for right now.