Loading page content
Preparing content…
SOC 17-3021 · O*NET 17-3021.00
Aerospace engineering and operations technicians turn test plans into reviewable equipment configurations, calibration records and measurement data, installing instruments, running tests, identifying anomalies and maintaining test systems within the requirements and safety boundaries defined by engineers.
Model impact index for three equally weighted representative core tasks; not a measured share of working time or a job-loss probability. floor((25+25+75)/3+0.5)=42; fermatmind-ai-impact-v1; 2026-10-18.
The core of aerospace engineering and operations technician work is not the vague notion of 'knowing equipment', but preparing controlled tests to specification, verifying the measurement chain and the data, recording anomalies, and making a reviewable judgement about test status. Fit depends more on observable task behaviour: whether you are willing to work hands-on, whether you can verify items against procedures, and whether you can keep records accurate under safety and time pressure.
Assessments and exercises serve only as a reference for self-exploration, and cannot predict hiring, competence or future performance.
If you dislike repetitive wiring and record checking, find strict safety and procedural requirements hard to accept, tend to miss items during long repetitive operations, or are unwilling to stop and escalate when uncertain, this kind of work may steadily drain you; job design varies considerably across settings (aerospace manufacturing, research institutes, maintenance and test units), so first test your performance and tolerance with one complete controlled-test preparation exercise.
Install, operate and maintain test and measurement equipment used to develop, test, produce and support aircraft and spacecraft, and record and interpret test data.
The work of aerospace engineering and operations technicians falls into three categories: equipment preparation and calibration, test execution and data collection, and records and information management.
Equipment and test execution
Career direction comparison
This table compares two kinds of object: two work directions within the aerospace engineering and operations technicians occupation, and four clearly adjacent occupations. Each row answers the same set of questions—direction, core work and output, key differences, and what kind of choice it suits.
| Career direction | Core work and output | Key differences | Best-fit choice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test-stand testing and verification (direction within this occupation) | Test aeronautical and space systems under simulated or actual operating conditions, configure data acquisition, calibrate equipment, and record and interpret test data; the deliverables are test records, anomaly reports and readiness conclusions. | The main result is whether test data and equipment status are reviewable, and the work must be performed within the requirements and safety boundaries defined by engineers. | Suits people who are willing to work with instruments, data and test procedures over the long term and can keep records accurate under strict deadlines and safety requirements. |
AI impact on this career
This occupation's tasks include configuring, installing and calibrating instruments, running tests, diagnosing faults, and recording and interpreting data. This page suggests exploring tool assistance for organising, script drafting and record comparison on fictional data; no AI adoption rate, time saved or job-displacement ratio for this occupation was obtained. O*NET's accuracy and protective-equipment context does not constitute a measurement of AI effect; safety boundaries, approval and signing must be verified against the organisation's authority. AI Impact Score 42% is an editorial estimate. Model impact index for three equally weighted representative core tasks; not a measured share of working time or a job-loss probability. floor((25+25+75)/3+0.5)=42; fermatmind-ai-impact-v1; 2026-10-18.The three tasks, ratings and sources are listed in the FermatMind method source record on this page.
FermatMind AI Impact Score estimation method v1
FermatMind / 费马测试 · 2026-10-18
Chinese mainland salary reference
Insufficient evidence: this page obtained no precise wage distribution for this occupation in mainland China; the National Bureau of Statistics 2025 industry-sector average wage serves only as a broad-basis proxy and cannot be treated as this occupation's or an individual's quote.
Insufficient evidence: this page obtained no precise wage distribution for this occupation in mainland China; the National Bureau of Statistics 2025 industry-sector average wage serves only as a broad-basis proxy and cannot be treated as this occupation's or an individual's quote.
Insufficient evidence: no monthly pay statistics or verifiable public job-posting sample was obtained for aerospace engineering and operations technicians in mainland China's first-tier cities. The National Bureau of Statistics industry-sector annual average wage is limited to employed persons in urban non-private legal entities within the survey scope and does not separately show this occupation, city or qualification distribution, so it cannot be converted into a monthly pay reference for this position, and this page also does not substitute adjacent-occupation data. If verifiable official or job-posting material becomes available later, it should be added to the same occupation file and this marker removed.
U.S. pay reference
In the United States, the median annual wage in 2025, month 5 (May), is $82,890 (hourly $39.85), with the 10th, 25th, 75th and 90th percentiles at $59,050, $67,680, $111,280 and $125,160 respectively. BLS employment in 2025 was 11,600, projected to grow 12% over 2025—2035, an official net increase of 1,400 people, with about 1,100 openings per year on average. Openings include replacement demand and are not net new positions; a percentile is not a newcomer's quote.
| Position in the wage statistics | Annual wage reference | Conversion boundaries | How to understand this position |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lowest 10% | $59,050/year | Official annual wage, not individual monthly income | The 10th percentile is $59,050/year ($28.39/hour), meaning about 10% of workers earn below this level; it is not equal to a starting wage and does not represent the offer of any region or employer. |
| Median (50%) | $82,890/year |
Occupation fit guide
Fit depends on task behaviour, not labels: whether you are willing to prepare equipment hands-on, verify the measurement chain and data against procedures, keep records accurate under time pressure and safety requirements, and close out anomalies. Personality and interest assessments provide discussion cues only and cannot serve as hiring or ability thresholds. This occupation usually requires an associate degree in engineering technology, and some employers accept a high school diploma or a certificate programme.
You may be better suited to： Willing to prepare equipment hands-on, verify data against procedures, and retain the evidence before continuing when an anomaly occurs.
These situations call for caution： Caution is needed if you expect purely desk-based analysis, are unwilling to go on site or work with equipment, or are unwilling to accept strict record-keeping and safety requirements.
Do one entry exercise： Complete one measurement chain and acquisition configuration, one readiness check and a data debrief using a mock equipment system, and record the steps you are willing to repeat and those you are not.
Work pressure, risks and occupational boundaries
Configuration versions, original records, drawing permissions, change approvals and review assignments can be verified. Below are risk scenarios and check suggestions designed by the editors for test tasks; actual adoption must follow the organisation's procedures, and the material cannot prove that these controls have reduced accidents or rework.
The background evidence is the O*NET work context and BLS descriptions of safety and the workplace; the risk and control list below is an editorial suggestion from this page, not an accident rate, a unified legal process or a training prevalence rate.
Typical scenario：Test parameters are adjusted ad hoc without recording the reason or version information.
Roles most affected：Frontline technical positions responsible for configuring and executing controlled tests.
Possible consequence：
Entry, qualifications and career development
Entry requirements are verified separately by jurisdiction and position. The typical U.S. BLS entry education is an associate degree related to engineering technology, and some employers accept high school graduates or certificate programme completers; for mainland China, evidence on precise job postings and admission mapping is insufficient. The development order below is an editorial exploration framework, and experience, certificates and job titles cannot replace actual authority.
Career prospects and moves to related occupations
Insufficient evidence: this page obtained no precise employment projection or transition success rate for this occupation in mainland China. U.S. BLS: employment of 11,600 in 2025, projected to grow 12% over 2025—2035, an official net increase of 1,400 people, with about 1,100 openings per year on average, including replacement demand. A national projection provides no probability of hiring in a specific region, programme or for an individual.
United States · O*NET single-occupation basis (17-3021.00)
O*NET 17-3021.00 (updated 2026)
Occupational tasks and context
Describes the composition of this occupation's tasks and work context, not employment size.
Does not establish：This basis does not provide headcount or projections, and cannot be used to infer employment demand.
The typical work chain is to confirm the test procedure with engineers, build or maintain test facilities, install instruments and the item under test, calibrate computers and measurement systems, run the test safely and record data, and finally troubleshoot equipment faults and quality anomalies.
The core output of these technicians is traceable test configurations, measurement data and equipment status; aerospace engineers focus more on design and technical decisions, while electronic or mechanical engineering technicians work on a broader range of electrical, electronic or mechanical equipment.
Choose a real task from this page for a small practice project or a conversation with someone in the field. Use the planning guides to set a date, an output and feedback questions before deciding whether to continue.
The core of aerospace engineering and operations technician work is not the vague notion of 'knowing equipment', but preparing controlled tests to specification, verifying the measurement chain and the data, recording anomalies, and making a reviewable judgement about test status. Judging fit should rely on observable task behaviour and working conditions, not personality labels; the exercises and checklists on this page were designed by the editors from public occupational sources for self-exploration, and do not constitute criteria for hiring, screening or ability assessment.
A stronger signal is: you are willing to prepare equipment hands-on, can verify items one by one against procedures, keep records accurate under time pressure and safety requirements, and can stop to verify the measurement chain when data look anomalous before deciding. A single mock measurement-chain and data-collection exercise with a debrief record can test this: whether constraints were clarified, whether the configuration is reproducible, and whether anomalies were closed out.
Data judgement and collaboration
This occupation focuses on test equipment, data acquisition, equipment fault diagnosis and records; aerospace engineers focus on design, analysis and technical solutions, while avionics and aircraft maintenance roles focus on maintaining the corresponding equipment. Duties overlap, and test approval, configuration changes and maintenance sign-off must each be verified against the individual's own authority; a job title does not confer it automatically.
| Dimension | Primary track | Comparison track |
|---|---|---|
| Core purpose | Delivers reviewable test data and equipment status, supporting design verification and product release decisions. | Prepare and execute controlled tests to procedure |
| Main objects and basis | Make verifiable judgements based on specifications, test directives, calibration records and acquisition configurations. | Equipment specifications, test directives and measurement data |
| Core process | Equipment preparation—wiring and calibration—acquisition configuration—running the test—recording anomalies—retest and issuing records. | The complete process from verifying the measurement chain to closing out anomalies |
| Main outputs | Traceable test data, calibration records, anomaly-handling records and retest recommendations. | Test records, calibration ledger and anomaly reports |
| Responsible party | Responsibilities can be divided into execution, records, technical requirements, safety review and approval; this is this page's editorial verification framework, and the specifics are set by the organisation's procedures and the individual's authority. | Technicians, engineers, and quality and safety roles |
| Authority and approval | Technicians must not confirm that a test passed, change a configuration or sign off equipment release beyond their authority. | Test release, configuration changes and maintenance sign-off are decided by authorised personnel |
| Boundary of conclusions | Actual authorisation and test conditions prevail, and cannot be extrapolated to other models or organisations. | Applies only to specific equipment and test conditions, and cannot be extrapolated |
Prepare test equipment to specification, verify the measurement chain and ranges, and record calibration status.
Configure acquisition parameters, run the specified operating conditions and collect traceable test data.
Inspect, diagnose and replace faulty components to restore equipment availability.
Verify values, units and periods, record anomalies and provide retest recommendations.
Maintain test records, the calibration ledger and versions, ensuring the signature chain is traceable.
Confirm test procedures and results with engineering staff, escalating anomalies promptly.
Before starting the job, check item by item the specialisation, equipment and software requirements, the scope of test authority, safety and qualification requirements, and shift patterns and working hours.
Confirm whether the position is in testing, calibration, avionics testing or assembly.
Check the equipment and software requirements, and whether on-the-job training is needed.
Check the scope of authority for test release, configuration changes and maintenance sign-off.
Check security clearance, protective-equipment requirements and the validity period of qualifications.
| Avionics and instrument calibration (direction within this occupation) | Install, calibrate and maintain test and measurement equipment, diagnose faults and replace components; the deliverables are calibration records, repair work orders and the equipment ledger. | The main result is instrument availability and calibration traceability, relying on judgement about the measurement chain and failure modes. | Suits people who prefer troubleshooting, maintaining the measurement chain, and patiently verifying specifications and records. |
|---|
| Aerospace engineers | Design, develop and test aircraft, spacecraft and related systems; the deliverables are design calculations, drawings and technical specifications. | Engineers decide the design metrics and technical solutions and carry design responsibility; technicians execute testing and verification within the established requirements. | Suits people who want to move towards design, analysis and definition of technical solutions, and are willing to take on higher education requirements and design responsibility. |
|---|
| Avionics technicians | Install, test, adjust or repair on-board radar, radio, navigation and flight-control electronic equipment, producing test, repair and fault records; this does not automatically confer airworthiness release authority. | Avionics technicians focus on installing, testing and repairing electronic equipment on board the aircraft; this occupation focuses on test instruments, acquisition systems and test data. The two can share tasks, and signing authority must be verified separately. | Suits people who want to keep troubleshooting electronic equipment on board the aircraft; maintenance and sign-off qualifications are verified by jurisdiction, specific duties and authorisation. |
|---|
| Aircraft mechanics and service technicians | Inspect, adjust and repair aircraft airframes, engines and related systems, producing maintenance and inspection records; release documents are signed by those holding the corresponding authority. | Aircraft mechanics and service technicians focus on maintaining airframes, engines and related systems; test technician roles focus on measurement and test records, and release authority must be verified separately in both cases. | Suits people who prefer maintaining and inspecting aircraft according to manuals; where maintenance release is involved, local qualifications and the organisation's authorisation must be verified separately. |
|---|
| Architectural and civil drafters | Produce architectural and structural drawings, topographic maps and construction drawings using CAD or by hand; the deliverables are drawings, material lists and explanatory documents. | Drafters turn design intent into constructible drawings; this occupation uses drawings and specifications to build and calibrate test facilities. | Suits people who prefer drafting, specification checking and document management rather than test execution and data analysis. |
|---|
When choosing, look at the outcome you want to be responsible for: test data and equipment status, design metrics, avionics system availability, airframe and systems maintenance release, or engineering drawings. Shared engineering literacy does not erase the differences in output and authorisation boundaries.
The comparison above describes only the differences in output and responsibility; job design varies considerably across settings (aerospace manufacturing, research institutes, air transport and maintenance), so check the specific employer's job description and qualification requirements before choosing.
Editorial ratings use the existing occupational responsibilities and AI task analysis on this page. They are not adoption rates, measured effects, job-disappearance or personal-unemployment probabilities, or official scores from Stanford or another external institution. No measured time weights or future robot deployment are assumed.
Technical solvability is a task hypothesis that needs verification. This page suggests testing organising, script drafting or record comparison on fictional data and recording errors and review time; the occupational task list itself cannot prove that a tool is already competent, efficient or safe.
'Actual organisational adoption' looks at whether the organisation really puts the tool into its processes. Adoption thresholds in test and calibration work include equipment and information security, data traceability, qualifications and safety responsibility, and whether the cost of a wrong configuration or a missed detection can be measured. Technical availability does not mean it will be adopted.
BLS projects that U.S. employment for this occupation will grow 12% over 2025—2035; the projection does not break the result down into a net generative AI effect. A tool being able to handle a task is not enough to conclude that positions will shrink or to give a year of disappearance.
| Work area | Task | Current change | Human control point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment and calibration | Install, configure and calibrate test and measurement equipment | Editorial trial suggestion: assistance with the ledger and calibration records; effect not verified | Confirm the measurement chain, configuration and safety boundaries |
| Test execution | Determine the data acquisition plan and test parameters and run the test | Editorial trial suggestion: assistance with data organisation; effect not verified | Judge whether test parameters and data are valid |
| Fault diagnosis | Diagnose, maintain and repair test rigs and equipment | Editorial trial suggestion: classifying candidate faults in logs; effect not verified | Diagnose faults and decide whether to replace components |
| Data interpretation | Record, interpret and review test data | Editorial trial suggestion: assistance with unit and anomaly checking; effect not verified | Interpret the data and retain the evidence |
| Technical communication | Discuss test procedures and results with engineering staff and keep a record | Editorial trial suggestion: assistance with organising meeting notes; effect not verified | Verify the signature and authorisation chain |
| Readiness and release | Perform readiness checks and pre-test and post-test checks | Editorial trial suggestion: digitising checklists; effect not verified | Judge whether release conditions are met |
| Facilities and safety | Build and maintain test facilities to specification and comply with safety requirements | Editorial trial suggestion: assistance with documentation and scheduling; effect not verified | Verify safety requirements and operating qualifications |
The evidence cards below explain the source object, conclusion and limitations of each judgement.
The following are tool trial directions proposed by this page's editors based on the occupation's tasks, with no demonstrated effect or adoption rate.
AI primarily changesEditorial suggestion: trial organising, unit checking and draft records on fictional data, and verify item by item against the original data.
Human responsibility remainsApproval of test directives, safety boundaries and equipment configuration changes remain with engineers and authorised personnel.
AI primarily changesEditorial suggestion: trial classifying candidate faults and comparing calibration records using self-made logs, and record misjudgements and missed items.
Human responsibility remainsFault handling, component replacement and permission to use equipment are decided by those with the corresponding duties and authority.
AI primarily changesEditorial suggestion: trial retrieving public documents, formatting reports and drafting training material, verifying sources and applicability conditions item by item.
Human responsibility remainsTest conclusions, anomaly escalation and airworthiness-related sign-off remain the responsibility of people and the organisation.
The five steps below set out the order of input, verification, recording and authorisation when using tools in test and calibration work (an editorial synthesis, not a statutory procedure).
Confirm why it is being used, which equipment and data are involved, and whether authorisation and security clearance have been obtained.
Write down clearly what the tool can do, who receives the output, and which data and authorisation conditions are missing.
Verify the output item by item against equipment specifications, calibration status and the test directive, especially safety-related conclusions.
Keep the data sources, configuration and script versions, and the reasons for changes, to support approval and later review.
Clarify who approves configuration changes and test release, who reviews the output, and who is responsible for safety.
Treating draft data or inferences as confirmed measurement results directly affects test judgement and safety.
Control: Bind every value to the original acquisition record and calibration status; content that cannot be traced does not enter the conclusion.
Equipment, test data or client material is sensitive information, and an unclear scope for external sharing leads to leaks and compliance problems.
Control: Collect and check permissions for data and drawings on a minimised basis, specifying clearly which fields may be shared externally and the confidentiality requirements.
Inconsistent script, configuration and tool versions make data irreproducible, affecting test conclusions and retests.
Control: Register script, configuration and tool versions together, and record the version used and the reason for changes.
Recording measurement values, units or periods incorrectly leads to misjudgement and non-conforming conclusions.
Control: Have values, units and periods reviewed by two people, and verify outliers before using them.
When review is missing, it is impossible to say who confirmed and who approved, and responsibility cannot be traced when problems arise.
Control: Record the tool's involvement, the human reviewer and the final approver, and monitor anomalies and rework.
Practise with a mock test task: verify the measurement chain, write a data-collection plan, record anomalies, and mark which conclusions must go back to the engineer or the authorised person for confirmation.
Limit the tool to data organisation and first drafts, and keep version records for all configuration changes and calibration conclusions, subject to review.
Build an output-review and exception-escalation checklist: test release, safety boundaries and maintenance sign-off are not decided by a tool, and a human authorisation step must be reserved.
Define the data and equipment available, clarify who reviews and who approves changes, and periodically spot-check outputs and records.
Insufficient evidence: no AI adoption rate, time saved, displacement ratio or timing forecast for this occupation was obtained. The BLS 2025—2035 employment projection is growth of 12%, and is not an AI attribution study; the tool trial suggestions on this page also do not prove that efficiency has been improved or positions reduced.
Source: U.S. BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook: Aerospace Engineering and Operations TechniciansOriginal source ↗
This has to be checked against the position. O*NET's hiring technology list includes programming tools, and BLS also notes that computer simulation may involve programming, but the typical entry education is still an associate degree in an engineering technology field. This cannot be used to assert that every position must involve programming, or that none requires it.
Source: O*NET 17-3021.00 technology listOriginal source ↗
The editors of this page suggest first trialling data organisation, unit checking, script drafting and record comparison on fictional data, and comparing errors and review time. The available material contains no ranking of AI impact size and no evidence of time saved; safety judgements and approvals must be reviewed separately.
Source: O*NET 17-3021.00 detailed tasks and work activitiesOriginal source ↗
Current BLS projections have U.S. employment for this occupation growing 12% over 2025—2035, an official net increase of 1,400 people, with about 1,100 openings per year on average. The projected direction to 2035 is growth, but this is not a guarantee and cannot be used to derive the number of positions in a specific organisation or programme.
Source: U.S. BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook: Aerospace Engineering and Operations TechniciansOriginal source ↗
You cannot decide this on your own. Test release, equipment configuration changes, safety boundaries and maintenance sign-off are matters of organisational authorisation and must be completed by someone with the corresponding authority; O*NET lists documenting and recording information and evaluating compliance as important activities of this occupation, and tool output cannot substitute for authorisation and judgement.
Source: O*NET 17-3021.00 detailed tasks and work activitiesOriginal source ↗
The BLS and O*NET pages checked for this page do not provide a year in which this position disappears. The BLS projected employment change for 2025—2035 is not an occupation end date; specific task changes still have to be verified with organisational and programme evidence.
Source: U.S. BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook: Aerospace Engineering and Operations TechniciansOriginal source ↗
Three kinds of capability are more verifiable: first, the ability to explain the measurement chain, configuration and data basis clearly; second, the ability to verify tool output against equipment status and keep traceable records; third, the ability to read test data distributions and anomalies, and to stop and escalate when uncertain.
Source: O*NET 17-3021.00 detailed tasks and work activitiesOriginal source ↗
Occupational tasks and statistics are background evidence; the tool trial plan is an editorial suggestion from this page, and there is still no adoption rate, efficiency gain or displacement ratio for this occupation.
Insufficient evidence: no monthly pay data was obtained for aerospace engineering and operations technicians in mainland China's second-tier and provincial-capital cities. Official industry-sector annual average wages do not distinguish city tier, job duties or qualification level, cannot be converted into a monthly pay reference, and do not mean that this position is necessarily recruited at that city tier; this page makes no inference.
Insufficient evidence: this page obtained no wage and allowance data for this occupation broken down by manufacturing firm, research institute or test service unit. Contract, programme and working-hour terms must be checked item by item; industry averages cannot quantify these differences.
Insufficient evidence: no sample of public job postings was obtained
| Educational background | Common job directions | Notes and verification advice |
|---|---|---|
| Secondary vocational school or vocational high school (avionics, electromechanical, etc.) | An editorial exploration direction, not supported by a recruitment sample for this education level: positions focused on installation, calibration and data recording, such as avionics assembly and test assistant, test-stand operation support, and equipment maintenance technician. The specific position's education requirement, duties and authority must be verified; positions cannot be assigned directly by education level. | Insufficient evidence: no sample of mainland China job-posting quotes was obtained for this education level. |
| Associate degree (avionics, mechatronics, etc.) | An editorial exploration direction, not supported by a recruitment sample for this education level: positions such as aerospace test technician, avionics test technician and instrument and calibration technician that require independently operating test equipment and recording data. The specific position's education requirement, duties and authority must be verified; positions cannot be assigned directly by education level. | Insufficient evidence: no sample of mainland China job-posting quotes was obtained for this education level. |
| Bachelor's degree (aerospace engineering, mechatronics, etc.) | An editorial exploration direction, not supported by a recruitment sample for this education level: positions such as test-stand engineer, flight-test instrumentation technician, and system test and verification roles. The specific position's education requirement, duties and authority must be verified; positions cannot be assigned directly by education level. | Insufficient evidence: no sample of mainland China job-posting quotes was obtained for this education level. |
| Master's degree or above (aerospace engineering, etc.) | An editorial exploration direction, not supported by a recruitment sample for this education level: positions such as test plan and test system design, programme verification and technical management. The specific position's education requirement, duties and authority must be verified; positions cannot be assigned directly by education level. | Insufficient evidence: this page obtained no verifiable mainland China job-posting quote sample for this education level, so no pay is provided for it. |
No verifiable sample of public mainland China job postings was obtained, so this page does not display specific position or project quotes, and retains only the official statistical basis and qualification rules.
The annual average wage in this industry sector for urban non-private units in 2025 is 113,594 yuan; no by-position demand data for this occupation was obtained.
The annual average wage in this industry sector for urban non-private units in 2025 is 182,064 yuan; no by-position demand data for this occupation was obtained.
Insufficient evidence: this page obtained no by-industry demand or precise occupational wage data for this occupation in mainland China, including manufacturing, scientific research and technical services, and other industries; NBS industry average wages do not provide these occupational demand indicators.
The editors of this page suggest trying organisation and record comparison on fictional test data; there is still no evidence of AI adoption rates in this occupation or its effects on income. Approvals, safety boundaries and sign-off must be verified against actual authority; industry average wages cannot be used to derive AI's effect on an individual's income.
| Official annual wage, not an individual's actual pay |
| The median is $82,890/year ($39.85/hour), with half of workers below and half above; this is a position in the national distribution, not an individual's actual pay. |
| Highest 10% | $125,160/year | Official annual wage, not an individual's actual pay | A relatively high position in the national income distribution, with no causal explanation of income differences by individual experience, qualification or specialisation, and no guarantee of an individual quote. |
|---|
Pay · 10th percentile：The 10th percentile: $59,050/year ($28.39/hour)；About 10% of workers earn below this level； it is not equal to a starting wage and does not represent the offer of any region or employer.；O*NET OnLine 17-3021.00 national wage percentiles (BLS OEWS 2025, month 5 (May))
Pay · 25th percentile：The 25th percentile: $67,680/year ($32.54/hour)；The lower-quartile position in the distribution, usually below the national median, and needs to be compared together with industry and region.；O*NET OnLine 17-3021.00 national wage percentiles (BLS OEWS 2025, month 5 (May))
Pay · median：Median: $82,890/year ($39.85/hour)；Half of workers earn below and half above this value； this is a position in the national distribution, not an individual's actual pay.；O*NET OnLine 17-3021.00 national wage percentiles (BLS OEWS 2025, month 5 (May))；U.S. BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook: Aerospace Engineering and Operations Technicians
Pay · 75th percentile：The 75th percentile: $111,280/year ($53.50/hour)；The national upper-quartile position, with no causal explanation of wage differences by individual experience, qualification or specialisation.；O*NET national wage percentiles
Pay · 90th percentile：The 90th percentile: $125,160/year ($60.18/hour)；About 10% of workers earn above this level, and this cannot be used to promise an individual's income.；O*NET OnLine 17-3021.00 national wage percentiles (BLS OEWS 2025, month 5 (May))
No. The median only indicates the middle position of the distribution, with half of workers below and half above this value, and cannot be treated as a newcomer's starting pay or a fixed monthly salary.
No. OEWS annual wages and hourly wages come from the same statistical basis, and the hourly figure is a statistical conversion that does not represent each person's actual paid hours. Actual income also depends on industry, qualification level, programme arrangements and overtime, so national percentiles cannot be used to derive an individual's take-home income.
Wages come from BLS OEWS 2025, month 5 (May), with national percentiles shown by O*NET; employment and openings come from the BLS 2025—2035 projection. The two statistical programmes, years and coverage must be understood separately.
Specific income must be verified against the target region, industry, employer, duties, qualification requirements and contracted hours; the national statistics on this page cannot be used to derive an individual's take-home income, and no guarantee is made that a particular form of preparation will necessarily raise pay.
| Industry | Median wage for this occupation in this industry | How to understand this value |
|---|---|---|
| Aerospace product and parts manufacturing | $94,910/year | BLS median for this occupation in this industry, 2025, month 5 (May), not the average wage for the whole industry. |
| Engineering services | $77,260/year | BLS median for this occupation in this industry, 2025, month 5 (May); it cannot be matched to the 35% broad industry share in this O*NET set. |
| Scientific research and development services | $78,580/year | BLS median for this occupation in this industry, 2025, month 5 (May); it is not education-sector statistics. |
| Computer and electronic product manufacturing | $81,820/year | BLS median for this occupation in this industry, 2025, month 5 (May), not the U.S. national median. |
Both the national wage percentiles and the employment projection are compiled on a U.S. national basis, and differences across states, metropolitan areas and a single employer are not reflected.
BLS has published median wages for this occupation in aerospace product and parts manufacturing, engineering services, scientific research and development, and computer and electronic product manufacturing; these groups cannot be directly paired with the O*NET broad industry shares.
The position's specialisation, whether a qualification is necessary, and the duties and quote composition can be verified item by item; the wage distribution on this page cannot prove how much pay rise a particular certificate or type of experience brings.
The U.S. national employment size for this occupation in 2025, from the BLS employment projections programme； do not confuse it with the coverage of the OEWS wage survey.；BLS Occupational Outlook
BLS national projection, employment of 12,900 in 2035. The headcounts and the net change are rounded separately, so the official net change must not be rewritten by subtracting the endpoints.；BLS Occupational Outlook
Average annual openings include replacement demand created by transfers and exits, and are not equal to net new positions.；U.S. BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook: Aerospace Engineering and Operations Technicians
Which Holland interest type is closer to aerospace engineering and operations technicians?
O*NET lists the interest code for 17-3021.00 as RCI (Realistic first, followed by Conventional and Investigative): Realistic corresponds to hands-on work and equipment adjustment, Conventional to procedures and records, and Investigative to data and fault analysis. The way to verify this is to do one mock measurement-chain and data-collection exercise and see whether you are willing to keep working with instruments and records; an interest code cannot be used to infer ability or hiring outcomes.
Do not use it this way: Treating an interest code as a hiring or ability threshold leads to misjudgement; instead, go back to the evidence of equipment operation, data verification and safety records.
Test my Holland vocational interestsWhich Big Five traits are more relevant to this job?
This page sets no personality score threshold. Observable habits include whether records are complete, whether values are verified, and whether anomalies are escalated; the Big Five serves only as a framework for self-questioning, and this page obtained no validation study linking its scores to performance in this occupation. Use one mock test record to examine the concrete behaviour.
Do not use it this way: Replacing task evidence with scores leads to misjudgement: a low score does not mean someone cannot do the work, and a high score does not guarantee they can sustain strict deadlines and safety pressure over the long term.
View my Big Five personality traitsCan MBTI be used to judge whether I am suited to being an aerospace engineering and operations technician?
MBTI can be used to reflect on preferences, but this page cannot use its types to judge who is competent. You can separately record your experience of independent verification, written explanations and technical discussions, then compare them with actual operating and record quality; introvert/extrovert labels cannot replace this evidence.
Do not use it this way: Treating an MBTI type as a hiring standard leads to incorrect screening; use equipment operation, data verification and anomaly-handling records to judge instead.
Understand my MBTI preferencesCan the Enneagram tell me whether I am suited to this occupation?
The Enneagram describes motivational tendencies, and fit with this occupation can only be verified through tasks. It can help you reflect on how you react to test failures, equipment faults and safety pressure, but cannot be used to infer professional ability; verify with a mock test and a debrief record.
Do not use it this way: Treating a type as a necessary job requirement leads to misjudgement; motivational tendencies do not determine work outcomes, and equipment operation and record quality should be the basis.
Explore my Enneagram patternCan I be an aerospace engineering and operations technician if I am not good at mathematics?
The exercises on this page involve ranges, precision, zero correction, sampling rates and unit conversion. BLS notes that this occupation uses mathematics for measurement, analysis, design and troubleshooting; the mathematical depth of actual courses and positions must be checked separately, and it cannot be claimed that all directions need no higher mathematics. Intelligence scores cannot replace concrete task evidence.
Do not use it this way: This page sets no IQ admission score; use measurement calculations and data-verification material to check actual grasp, and other ability requirements still have to be compared against the target position.
Understand my intelligence and reasoning performanceDo aerospace engineering and operations technicians need high emotional intelligence?
Emotional ability helps with fault-finding and test pressure, but in the form of a self-rating or score it can hardly predict real performance. A more reliable approach is to observe your own actual handling under test anomalies and safety pressure: whether you verify the procedure first when data look anomalous, whether you keep communication clear during rework, and whether you notice your own state after long repetitive operations and review it. These behaviours can be recorded and reviewed with colleagues; an emotional intelligence score is not a threshold.
Do not use it this way: Treating an emotional intelligence score as a hiring threshold causes misjudgement; use anomaly-handling records, collaboration feedback and the quality of debriefs to judge instead.
Understand my emotional intelligence abilitiesFits better when: Prefers design parameters, analytical calculations and definition of technical solutions.
Watch for: Engineering design directions usually require a separately verified relevant bachelor's degree and design responsibility; the hands-on element varies with the specific task and cannot be asserted to be smaller on the basis of the direction alone.
Explore related career: Aerospace engineersFits better when: Prefers testing and troubleshooting electronic equipment on board the aircraft, and is willing to verify the required qualifications and actual authorisation.
Watch for: Delivers avionics equipment status and maintenance records; airworthiness release is completed by those with the corresponding qualifications and authorisation.
Explore related career: Avionics techniciansFits better when: Prefers maintaining and inspecting to manuals, and verifying the qualifications and authority of the sign-off position.
Watch for: Delivers aircraft maintenance and inspection records; release authority must be verified separately.
Explore related career: Aircraft and avionics equipment mechanics and techniciansFits better when: Prefers calibration procedures, uncertainty and traceable records.
Watch for: Focuses on metrology and equipment availability, with a narrower test scope.
Explore related career: Calibration techniciansFits better when: Willing to verify airworthiness status against regulations and checklists and issue records.
Watch for: Delivers compliance inspections, without responsibility for equipment adjustment and data collection.
Explore related career: Aviation inspectorsFits better when: Prefers assembling and inspecting structural components and systems to drawings.
Watch for: Delivers assembly and inspection, with less involvement in data interpretation.
Explore related career: Aircraft structure, surfaces, rigging and systems assemblersNo personality type is a threshold. The basis for judgement is observable task behaviour: whether you are willing to prepare equipment hands-on, verify the measurement chain and data against procedures, keep records accurate under time pressure and safety requirements, and close out anomalies. You can first run a real test with one mock measurement-chain and data-collection exercise, then record your honest feelings about repetitive operation and safety requirements. These records can show whether you are willing to repeat this kind of work, but cannot show whether you can be hired or stay competent in the long run.
An introvert label cannot determine fit. In a mock case you can separately complete an independent verification, a written anomaly explanation and one technical discussion, recording accuracy, missed items and experience, then compare them with the position's communication requirements; a single observation does not allow inference about long-term competence or hiring probability.
An extrovert label can neither guarantee nor exclude fit. In the same mock case, slow down the wiring checks and readiness verification and record missed items, communication and revisions; then check the real job requirements. This only describes one task performance and provides no overall ability, long-term competence or hiring conclusion.
There is no best-suited type. MBTI describes preferences, not ability or performance; it cannot be used for hiring, screening or ability determination. A more usable approach is to treat the type description as self-questioning: in which situations am I more willing to do equipment adjustment, write records and handle anomalies? Then verify these preferences with one test and calibration debrief. A type label can only suggest discussion directions.
O*NET lists the interest code for this occupation as RCI (Realistic first, followed by Conventional and Investigative), describing preferences for the occupational environment: Realistic corresponds to hands-on work and equipment adjustment, Conventional to procedures and records, and Investigative to data and fault analysis. This is only an environment-preference label, not an ability threshold, and cannot be used to infer hiring or income. It can be verified with one mock measurement chain: whether you are willing to revise the configuration and conclusions on the basis of the records.
Insufficient evidence: this page obtained no validation study in which personality or interest scores predict individual performance in this occupation, so no screening or ability conclusion is drawn. Equipment preparation records, acquisition configurations and anomaly explanations can be compared with the job tasks to distinguish what was actually completed, what needed guidance and what was not attempted; a small sample only supports the direction of further practice and does not allow inference about long-term competence, income or hiring probability.
First check whether you can complete the measurement calculations on this page, then fill gaps according to the real course and duties. BLS notes that mathematics is used for measurement, analysis, design and troubleshooting, but gives no unified curriculum list for all directions; one exercise only shows your current grasp of the calculations, and cannot promise that you can still do the job or be hired with an insufficient mathematical foundation.
What is needed is observable communication and emotional handling, not a particular emotional intelligence score. Common situations at work include: anomalous test data requiring rework, a schedule delayed by equipment failure, or a disagreement with engineering staff over parameter definitions. Whether you can understand the reason first, adjust the approach, and escalate or stop the test when necessary says more than a self-rated score. These reactions can be verified with one anomaly drill or a real project debrief, and reviewed with colleagues; this cannot be used to infer long-term performance or a hiring outcome.
No. The Enneagram describes motivational tendencies, not professional ability; using it to judge fit ignores differences in actual tasks and conditions. A more useful approach is to treat the type description as a reflection cue: under test failures, equipment faults and strict deadlines, do I tend to persist, change approach, or avoid? Then design a recordable test, such as two consecutive weeks of preparation records and a debrief log. This evidence can support the direction to try next, but cannot produce a conclusion about fit or hiring.
First choose one direction and produce a set of deliverables: a measurement chain and acquisition configuration for a mock equipment system, a readiness check record and a data debrief; then do the same version in the other direction. Compare the time invested, the number of times you revised the configuration, and whether you are willing to repeat the process. The deliverables can show the tasks and preferred direction you currently have, but cannot prove professional competence or replace real project experience in the target position.
How to reduce risk：Register configurations, scripts and tool versions together; changes must record the reason and be reviewed.
Evidence：O*NET 17-3021.00 detailed tasks and work activities · BLS testing and engineering collaboration
Typical scenario：Review is needed when a handover is unclear or records are overwritten and historical test data cannot be traced.
Roles most affected：Frontline positions that need to maintain test and calibration records.
Possible consequence：Missing records or confused versions make data untraceable.
How to reduce risk：Keep test records, anomalies and retest recommendations in the system together, and periodically verify record completeness and versions.
Evidence：O*NET 17-3021.00 detailed tasks and work activities · O*NET records and technical communication
Typical scenario：Sending test data or unpublished drawings directly to external third parties.
Roles most affected：Positions that handle test data and technical drawings.
Possible consequence：Data leaks, drawings leaving the organisation, and compliance disputes.
How to reduce risk：Collect and check permissions for test data and drawings on a minimised basis, specify which fields may be shared externally, and keep approval records.
Evidence：O*NET records and technical communication · BLS testing and engineering collaboration
Typical scenario：Confirming that a test passed or signing off equipment release without authorisation.
Roles most affected：Positions that judge test conclusions and equipment status.
Possible consequence：Releasing beyond authority creates safety and quality liability.
How to reduce risk：Test release, configuration changes and maintenance sign-off follow the authorisation chain, and tool output cannot replace a signature.
Evidence：O*NET testing and facility tasks · O*NET 17-3021.00 detailed tasks and work activities
Typical scenario：When the sole contact is on leave or leaves the company, no one responds to tests and equipment maintenance.
Roles most affected：Where a single piece of equipment or test stand is maintained by only one person and no replacement is available.
Possible consequence：No one maintains the equipment, tests are interrupted and schedules slip.
How to reduce risk：Set a backup contact and shared records for critical equipment, and complete a full handover before leave.
Evidence：BLS working environment and duties · BLS testing and engineering collaboration
Typical scenario：When collection and review are done by the same person with no signed record left.
Roles most affected：Technical positions that both prepare tests and review records.
Possible consequence：Missing record entries, disputed conclusions and rising rework.
How to reduce risk：Clarify the division of responsibility for data collection, review and release, and escalate anomaly acknowledgements to engineers or the quality department promptly.
Evidence：O*NET 17-3021.00 detailed tasks and work activities · O*NET testing and facility tasks
| Entry-level positions | What you mainly do in the early days on the job | What employers usually look at | How to prove yourself without experience | How it differs from other directions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test and measurement assistant | Assists in setting up equipment, checking wiring, and organising calibration records and test data. | Usually looks at hands-on habits, instrument use and whether records are properly kept. | Submit a mock instrument list and calibration check record, noting the sources. | A supportive entry-level position that usually does not independently determine test parameters and release. |
| Avionics assembly technician | Assembles and inspects wiring harnesses, sensors and connectors to drawings and specifications, and records test results. | Values drawing interpretation, manual and soldering skills, and habits of working to procedures. | Submit a mock assembly checklist and wiring verification record. | Focused on assembly and inspection for on-board systems, without responsibility for airworthiness release signing. |
| Test-stand operation technician | Configures data acquisition to the test directive, runs the test and records test data. | Values measurement principles, acquisition software use and habits of recording anomalies. | Use public or self-made data to produce an acquisition configuration and anomaly record note. | Starts to take responsibility for test data quality, while safety boundaries are still defined by engineers. |
| Instrument calibration technician | Maintains the measurement chain, performs calibrations, verifies uncertainty and issues records on a cycle. | Values calibration procedures, gauge use and habits of keeping traceable records. | Submit a mock calibration plan and uncertainty record. | Leans towards metrology and equipment availability, without direct responsibility for model test conclusions. |
| Drone test technician | Operates, tests and troubleshoots drone systems to procedures, and records flight and fault data. | Values drone operation, fault-finding and compliance with safety rules. | Use public or self-made material to produce a drone test checklist and anomaly record. | Results relate to unmanned system testing and troubleshooting, without determining aircraft airworthiness. |
The BLS Occupational Outlook states that entry usually requires an associate degree in engineering technology; some employers accept candidates with a high school diploma or a completed certificate programme.
O*NET places this occupation in Job Zone Three (medium preparation), and 39% of respondents in the survey said a post-secondary certificate was required.
U.S. BLS states that certification is not generally required for this occupation; this does not mean that all countries and specific operations are exempt from qualifications or permits. External certificates do not automatically grant test release, maintenance sign-off or security clearance.
Verifiable preparation items include training records in calibration, non-destructive testing, welding or drone operation, and the organisation's internal scope of equipment authority and security clearance.
O*NET work context shows that 96% consider precision or accuracy extremely important, 95% work more than 40 hours per week, and 96% work in a controlled indoor environment every day.
86% use email every day, 74% use the telephone every day, 69% wear protective or safety equipment every day, and 36% consider the consequences of error very serious.
The O*NET U.S. hiring technology list for 2025 lists 27 software skills, covering CAD, programming, databases and system platforms. This list and the occupational software skill classification are not the same statistical object.
The list does not publish mention shares for individual items; the presence of a tool indicates only a category, and does not mean a position must master them all.
Fixed exercise (all fictional): test-stand records for the landing-gear actuator of the drone supplier Xiangce. 20 cycles are planned, but this page gives only a summary of 3 initial test runs and 1 retest, and does not mean the full test series has been completed.
Input: displacement sensor L1 with a range of 0—150 mm and an example error limit of ±0.5 mm; CH1 corresponds to L1, with a sampling rate of 1,000 Hz; the channel timestamp is 2 ms later than the reference, so align offline by subtracting 2 ms. The initial peaks are 118.6, 119.2 and 120.4 mm in order. The zero check record is +0.8 mm, and only in this exercise is the drift assumed to be a constant offset.
Exercise criteria: corrected peak = reading − 0.8 mm; example upper bound = corrected value + 0.5 mm, which must not exceed 120.0 mm. If an upper bound exceeds the limit or the calibration status is unclear, keep the original record and stop the assessment for that run. After calibration is restored, the 3rd retest peak is given as 119.0 mm with a zero of 0.0 mm; the 17 runs not given must not be fabricated.
For the same case, write out the L1—CH1 measurement chain, the range, the 1,000 Hz sampling and the −2 ms time alignment; list separately the original readings, the zero-corrected values, the example upper bounds, the criteria and the retest record.
Calculate the upper bounds for the 3 initial runs and the 3rd retest, and explain why the 3rd initial run cannot be judged as passing directly. Distinguish the given data, the constant-offset assumption, and the calibration evidence and the 17 cycles still missing; the presence of drift cannot by itself rule out a structural fault.
Reference calculation: the corrected initial peaks are 117.8, 118.4 and 119.6 mm; adding the example error limit gives upper bounds of 118.3, 118.9 and 120.1 mm. The first two meet the numerical criteria of this exercise, while the 3rd upper bound exceeds 120.0 mm, so the record should be kept and calibration verification and a retest awaited. The 2 ms alignment changes only the time axis and cannot prove the cause of the displacement anomaly.
The given retest upper bound is 119.0＋0.5＝119.5 mm, which meets the numerical criteria of this exercise. The constant +0.8 mm offset is only an assumption in the statement, not a proven fault cause; the error limit is not equal to the full measurement uncertainty. In the absence of calibration validity, the full 20 runs of data and on-site readiness evidence, the whole test series cannot be judged as passing, structural failure cannot be ruled out, and no sign-off can be given.
The case, material and figures above are fictional exercise data and do not represent a real company, model or official statistic; the exercise does not constitute test or safety advice, and real testing must follow the organisation's test directive, safety procedures and authorisation process.
For the target employer, compile the education, specialisation, equipment and software requirements, and the scope of authority (including whether it covers test release or maintenance sign-off), with sources and verification dates.
The same occupation differs considerably between aerospace manufacturing, research institutes and maintenance units; this table records only verified items and items still to be confirmed.
For each test or calibration record, list self-check items: the measurement chain and channel mapping, ranges and precision, calibration status, anomaly handling and the signature chain.
The review checklist is for self-checking and peer review, and does not replace the organisation's safety and quality review.
Fictional one-page summary: 20 runs are planned, but only 3 initial runs and the 3rd retest are given. The initial upper bounds are 118.3, 118.9 and 120.1 mm, and the 3rd requires the assessment to be paused; the given retest upper bound of 119.5 mm meets the example criterion of 120.0 mm. The 17 runs and the calibration and readiness evidence are still missing, so the whole series cannot be judged as passing and no fault cause can be established.
Work standard: the measurement chain and parameters are verifiable, the data have original records, anomalies are closed out, and it is stated which conclusions cannot be drawn from the available information.
| Screening or trial stage | Tasks that may be checked | Observable or submittable evidence | Conclusions that cannot be inferred from this |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material screening | Check whether relevant testing, instrument or assembly experience, and instrument use and record-keeping standards, are consistent with the job duties. | Whether the submittable material is complete, verifiable and mutually consistent. | A single round of material screening cannot judge actual test operation and troubleshooting ability. |
| Case and scenario questions | Given a mock test task, follow-up questions on the measurement chain, acquisition parameters, anomaly handling and safety boundaries. | Whether the answers give concrete steps, data sources and qualifying conditions. | Scenario questions cannot replace real equipment operation and safety pressure. |
| Test and calibration review | For one test or calibration record, explain the measurement chain, calibration status, anomaly handling and the boundaries of the conclusion. | Whether measurement results are distinguished from inferences, and whether the sources of uncertainty are stated. | A single review cannot be used to infer the qualification to independently prepare controlled tests over the long term. |
| Trial period | Observe equipment preparation, data collection, anomaly recording and how review feedback is acted on. | Whether records are verifiable, and whether review feedback is implemented in the next task. | A short trial cannot be used to infer long-term retention, test release or maintenance sign-off authority. |
Use the Xiangce landing-gear actuator case: L1—CH1, a range of 0—150 mm and an example error limit of ±0.5 mm, with 20 runs planned rather than completed.
Write out the sensor, range, sampling rate and channel mapping, and state the basis.
List the readiness check items, safety requirements and stop conditions.
Give the acquisition configuration, anomaly decision thresholds and data retention method.
Write down the data validity criteria, the review method, and when to stop the test and escalate.
List the initial upper bounds of 118.3, 118.9 and 120.1 mm and the given retest value of 119.5 mm; explain why the 3rd run pauses the assessment first, and register the missing 17 runs, the calibration validity and the readiness evidence.
Revise the plan or assumptions according to review feedback, and record whether you are willing to repeat this process.
| Qualification / status | Who it mainly suits | Practical effect in job seeking | Whether it is a general entry threshold | Application / registration requirements | Level of investment | Important limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No relevant experience | People with no relevant experience yet who want to understand equipment testing and recording tasks. | First check whether the employer accepts newcomers; having no experience alone does not mean you cannot apply at all. | The BLS typical related work experience category is None, and a specific position may still state an experience requirement. | Build up coursework, practical training or fictional exercise material for the target position, and clearly state the duties you actually undertook. | Medium: time is needed to complete presentable records and operating practice. | Without records and operating practice, it is hard to demonstrate equipment use and data verification ability. |
| Associate degree in engineering technology | Applicants who want to meet the entry education requirement of most positions through their education. | Meets the education condition typical for entry to this occupation. | BLS states that entry usually requires an associate degree in engineering technology; some employers accept a high school diploma or a certificate programme. | Complete your studies to the institution's requirements, and build up practical training or project experience as far as possible. | Medium to high: includes the time spent in education and tuition costs. | An academic qualification by itself does not guarantee hands-on ability, and still needs operating and record evidence to support it. |
| Related practical training or project experience | People who have already taken part in testing, instrumentation or assembly while studying or changing careers. | Can be used to explain the tasks performed, equipment operation and record quality; there is no evidence of the size of any hiring benefit. | Whether it is necessary must be checked against the real job posting, without claiming what employers most often check. | Build up verifiable output through practical training, competitions or self-initiated projects. | Medium: mainly time invested and record keeping. | Descriptions of experience must be verifiable; a nominal involvement cannot replace actual duties. |
| Training certificates in calibration, non-destructive testing or welding, etc. | People who want to add hands-on training records. | Can demonstrate specific training content; whether it meets or supplements the job requirements must be checked against the posting, and this page did not measure any hiring effect. | This page did not verify a unified requirement covering all jurisdictions and positions; specific operating qualifications and authorisations must be checked separately. | Complete the course and pass the assessment to the training provider's requirements, and keep the operating records. | Low to medium: mainly course and examination fees. | A training certificate is not equal to test release, maintenance sign-off or security clearance. |
| Drone operation-related qualifications | People who want to work in drone testing and operations. | If the position involves actual drone operation, qualifications must be verified according to the location, aircraft type and operating scenario. | It is not a uniform requirement for all positions in this occupation; specific operating obligations must be checked against the applicable regulations. | Complete the training and assessment to the competent authority's requirements and keep them valid. | Medium: mainly training and assessment fees. | The qualification covers only a specific operating scope and is not equal to aircraft airworthiness or maintenance release. |
| Controlled test and equipment authority experience | People who already have experience in controlled test preparation, equipment maintenance or a calibration system. | Can demonstrate the controlled test duties and authority previously held, without guaranteeing a promotion or responsibility for more equipment. | Whether a senior position requires independent test experience must be checked in the specific posting and duties. | Seek controlled test, equipment authority and coaching opportunities in your current position, and keep records. | Medium: mainly job opportunities and accumulated experience. | Without independent test and authority records, a job title cannot replace actual authority. |
Typical scope：Prepares equipment to the test directive, checks wiring and records data.
Readiness evidence：One equipment preparation and wiring check record.
Credential boundary：The typical U.S. education is an associate degree related to engineering technology, and some employers accept high school or a certificate programme; practical training cannot automatically replace an education requirement, and specific positions in China must be checked separately.
Next moves：Independently prepare one type of controlled test.
Typical scope：Independently configures acquisition, runs the test and verifies data validity.
Readiness evidence：Test records, anomaly reports and retest recommendations.
Credential boundary：Usually requires controlled test or data collection experience.
Next moves：Takes on more complex operating conditions or cross-equipment tests.
Typical scope：Responsible for the test plan, anomaly escalation and record completeness.
Readiness evidence：Complete test packages, anomaly closure and review records.
Credential boundary：Usually requires several years of controlled test experience.
Next moves：Moves towards test lead or test methods.
Typical scope：Responsible for test capability, safety boundaries and team results.
Readiness evidence：Test capability lists, incident prevention and development records.
Credential boundary：Usually requires several years of test and team management experience.
Next moves：Moves into general test management according to the organisation's needs.
Typical scope：Maintains measuring equipment on a cycle and records its status.
Readiness evidence：One measuring equipment maintenance and status record.
Credential boundary：The typical U.S. BLS entry requirement is an associate degree in engineering technology; some employers accept high school graduates or certificate programme candidates. Practical training can serve as an editorial preparation item and cannot automatically replace an education requirement; conditions in China and for a specific position must be checked separately.
Next moves：Independently responsible for one type of measuring equipment.
Typical scope：Performs calibrations, verifies uncertainty and issues records on a cycle.
Readiness evidence：Calibration plans, uncertainty records and the periodic ledger.
Credential boundary：Usually requires calibration or metrology-related experience.
Next moves：Takes on more complex measurement chains and equipment systems.
Typical scope：Responsible for the calibration system, anomaly determination and record traceability.
Typical scope：Assembles and inspects avionics wiring harnesses and connectors to drawings.
Readiness evidence：One assembly checklist and wiring verification record.
Credential boundary：Usually requires avionics or electrical assembly practical training experience.
Next moves：Independently takes on one type of avionics system testing.
Typical scope：Tests and troubleshoots avionics systems to procedures and records the data.
Readiness evidence：Test records, fault-finding and reset verification material.
Credential boundary：Usually requires avionics testing or maintenance experience.
Next moves：Takes on more complex avionics or drone test tasks.
Typical scope：Responsible for the avionics test plan, anomaly escalation and records.
Readiness evidence：Test plans, fault closure and review records.
Credential boundary：Usually requires several years of avionics test experience.
Able to complete equipment preparation, wiring checks and data recording under guidance, and explain the basis.
Able to independently prepare a controlled test, configure acquisition and verify data validity.
Able to coach colleagues, review others' test records and calibration status, and handle cross-equipment anomalies.
Able to take responsibility for the test plan, the equipment configuration system and safety boundaries, and manage authorisation and training.
United States · Official single-occupation basis (SOC 17-3021)
Growth of 12%; official net increase of 1,400 people; about 1,100 openings per year on average
Employment change
Answers the net change and replacement demand over the projection period.
Does not establish：A projection is not a certain outcome, and does not explain opportunities in a specific organisation or for an individual.
Mainland China · Broad industry-sector proxy, not this occupation
Manufacturing 113,594 yuan/year
Industry-sector wages
Only indicates the wage level of industries in which this occupation may be distributed.
Does not establish：Limited to employed persons in urban non-private legal entities within the survey scope; it cannot be broken down into this occupation's wage or cover all workers.
These are capability relationships, not automatic promotions or credential waivers.
Transfers：Understanding of design parameters and technical solutions
Build next：Systematic training in engineering design and analysis methods
View career profileTransfers：Complete understanding of airworthiness requirements and inspection records
Build next：Specialised training in airworthiness regulations and checklists
View career profileTransfers：Avionics systems and troubleshooting fundamentals
Build next：Training in on-board electronic equipment testing and repair; release qualifications must be checked separately by jurisdiction and duties.
View career profileTransfers：Equipment maintenance and fault judgement ability
Build next：Aircraft maintenance manual and inspection training; release requirements are checked by jurisdiction, aircraft type and authorisation.
View career profileTransfers：Measurement chain and calibration record ability
Build next：Uncertainty evaluation and metrology system training
View career profileTransfers：Record standards and anomaly analysis methods
Build next：Statistical process control and quality tool methods
View career profileTransfers：Safety procedures and communication and collaboration ability
Build next：Check control licences, training and airspace operating requirements against the target jurisdiction.
View career profileTransfers：Full ability in drawing interpretation and assembly inspection
Build next：Structural assembly and tooling operation experience
View career profileThe editors suggest observing procedure execution, record completeness, verification of units and timelines, and anomaly communication; these exercises do not predict hiring or long-term competence.
The editors of this page suggest trying scripts, data organisation and report drafts on fictional data; there is still no quantitative evidence of AI adoption or efficiency gain in this occupation. Actual installation, calibration, safety judgement and signing must still be reviewed against the position's authority.
This page's editorial checklist covers the measurement chain, units and time stamps, calibration status, parameter and configuration versions, original records and change approvals. The required review items and responsible persons in a real project are set by the applicable procedures and authorisation; this generic exercise checklist must not be described as verified FAA flight check requirements.
No. The U.S. national median annual wage in 2025, month 5 (May), is $82,890, with a median hourly wage of $39.85; this indicates the middle position of the income distribution and cannot be treated as a newcomer's starting pay, an individual's take-home wage or a particular employer's offer.
BLS lists the typical U.S. entry education as an associate degree in engineering technology or a related field; some employers also consider high school graduates or certificate programme completers.
BLS does not list a particular occupational certificate as a general statutory prerequisite for this occupation, but some defence-related programmes require security clearance, and certain levels may require U.S. citizenship; specific operating and signing authority is still determined by the programme, the employer and regulatory rules.
The editors suggest checking the test item, facilities, personnel, limitations, calibration status, anomaly records and the approval chain; the specific hazard analysis, readiness review and stop conditions must be confirmed against real project procedures. The fictional test-stand case on this page does not authorise actual equipment testing or release.
BLS currently projects U.S. growth of 12% for this occupation over 2025—2035, with about 1,100 openings per year on average; demand factors discussed include commercial small satellites, electric and hybrid aircraft, and drones. A projection is not a guarantee of individual opportunity; transitions must be checked separately for target duties, education and authorisation.
FermatMind careers content editorial team (compiled from public sources including O*NET, BLS and the National Bureau of Statistics)
2026-10-08 (nine-section revision limited to this round)
Occupational tasks and work context: O*NET OnLine 17-3021.00; employment and wages: U.S. BLS Occupational Outlook Handbook and OEWS 2025, month 5 (May); China wage basis: National Bureau of Statistics 2025 annual average wages of employed persons in urban units.
Limitations：Applies only to the O*NET 17-3021.00 occupation and the U.S. market, and cannot be used to infer mainland China occupational mapping, wages or qualification authority.
Limitations：National-basis employment and projections; excludes mainland China data and does not provide an individual wage quote.
Limitations：Task and work activity descriptions are used to understand the boundaries of duties, not as wage or demand statistics.
Limitations：OEWS does not cover the self-employed; a percentile is a statistical position, not an individual's take-home income or a starting-pay promise.
Limitations：Broad-basis annual average wages by industry sector and position category, not the wage distribution of this single occupation, city or unit type.
Limitations：Only gives the industry employment share, without industry wages; it cannot be used to infer China's industry structure.
Limitations：The certification list is an entry point for discovering related U.S. qualifications, and does not constitute a requirement for practising in China.
Limitations：The training list is an entry point for discovering local U.S. training, and does not represent a uniform employer requirement.
Limitations：27 hiring software skills, with no mention shares provided; no inference can be drawn about usage rates, hiring thresholds or tool effects.
Limitations：The default form is a report configuration entry point; the existence of the entry point does not mean the occupational attributes have been read.
Limitations：Used for the composition of the total wage bill; the before-tax and withholding basis in the 2025 statistics comes from the NBS notes on this page.
Limitations：Used to explain the basic requirements for labour contracts and for working-hour and remuneration terms; it does not cover other jurisdictions and does not replace organisational rules.
Limitations：Used to explain production and business units' work safety and worker training obligations; it does not constitute specific operating standards for a position.
Limitations：Serves as the official query entry point for OEWS data; percentile values follow the same reference period as shown by O*NET.
Limitations：Used to explain the institutional background of civil aircraft airworthiness and maintenance management; it does not constitute specific position qualification requirements.
Limitations：The occupational group page is used for horizontal comparison with similar positions; its figures are not precise occupational statistics for aerospace engineering and operations technicians.
Limitations：National and by-listed-industry median wages for this occupation; it does not provide individual programme quotes, actual allowance lists or hiring conditions.
Limitations：This section is a national aggregate projection and cannot be used to infer an individual's probability of unemployment or regional demand.
Limitations：This section describes the workplace, working hours and safety requirements, and is a description of the U.S. work context.
Limitations：This section describes the U.S. entry pathway and does not constitute an education or qualification requirement in China.
Limitations：Used to compare with adjacent engineering positions; it is not evidence of this occupation's wages or demand.
Limitations：Regional data entry point; this page cites only the national basis and does not use state or metropolitan area figures.
Limitations：Work context dimensions are used to understand working conditions, not as risk ratios or health diagnoses.
Limitations：Work activity dimensions are used to understand the composition of tasks, not as performance standards or hiring thresholds.
Limitations：Used to explain the institutional background of product liability and quality obligations; it does not constitute specific testing or calibration standards.
Limitations：Only gives the industry employment share, without industry wages; it cannot be used to infer China's industry structure.
The U.S. data on this page are on a national basis, and the China wage is a broad industry-sector proxy; neither can be converted into an individual's take-home income, and they cannot be extrapolated to each other.
Big Five personality test (Chinese) · MBTI personality test (Chinese) · Enneagram personality test (Chinese) · Intelligence and reasoning test (Chinese)
Check shift patterns, overtime, travel and off-site work arrangements.
Check on-the-job training, mentoring arrangements and how performance is assessed.
Readiness evidence：Calibration system documents, anomaly handling and review records.
Credential boundary：Usually requires several years of calibration and metrology experience.
Next moves：Moves towards metrology and equipment lead roles.
Typical scope：Responsible for the metrology system, equipment availability and team results.
Readiness evidence：Metrology system audits, equipment availability and development records.
Credential boundary：Usually requires several years of metrology and team management experience.
Next moves：Moves into general equipment management according to the organisation's needs.
Next moves：Moves towards avionics test lead roles.
Typical scope：Responsible for avionics test capability, safety and team results.
Readiness evidence：Test capability lists, anomaly prevention and development records.
Credential boundary：Usually requires several years of avionics test and team management experience.
Next moves：Moves into general test management according to the organisation's needs.
Limitations：Editorial ratings use the existing occupational responsibilities and AI task analysis on this page. They are not adoption rates, measured effects, job-disappearance or personal-unemployment probabilities, or official scores from Stanford or another external institution. No measured time weights or future robot deployment are assumed.
