CAVU Café: Royboy’s Prose & Cons, Page 14 of 17

Don’t you hate it when you go out shopping for a product, try several stores, and make your purchase, then discover that someone else had the same product for a lower price? The truth is I was likely conditioned to assume that only those stores I tried could offer that product at a price I thought competitive. Perhaps those stores had culled my favor by being the biggest, or what I thought was the only source of the product. Regardless, the seasoned shoppers among you would tell me that my process was flawed since I did not get the best value. What about airlines that send out Bids for MRO work for their aircraft and components thereof? Do they always get the best value following the RFQ/RFP process?

 

I’m here to tell you no.

 

Nearly every news outlet channel associated with MRO activity publishes summaries of firms which were awarded MRO contracts. An oft expressed frustration among MRO Salespersons is “I wish we had been presented the opportunity to bid on that one, not fair!” You don’t have to major in Quantitative Analysis to understand that the greater the pool of respondents, the greater the probability that you will have attained your goal of best value for your airline’s MRO buck. The fact remains however, that many airline MRO bids, RFP’s or RFQ’s continue to be offered to a limited number of firms. Why?

A short list to answer the question as to why this practice persists would include:

• The airline is firmly convinced that only those addressed can provide the service
• There does not appear to be a popularly accepted method to identify an exhaustive list of qualified bidders or
• There does not appear to be a popularly accepted method to publically post the bids for viewing by the widest possible pool of respondents
• The airline does not have the staff to handle the expected mass influx of respondents

For the cynical and conspiracy theorists among you, we’d have to add:

• The award decision has already been decided; the bidding process is just for show
• A key, award- decision maker has been unethically influenced by an MRO provider

BTW, I’m disturbed that so many people are fixated on conspiracy theories. There are whole and continuing TV programs servicing this popular phenomenon. A conspiracy theory behind every major event! No doubt this lines the pockets of those selling airtime and books; perhaps it’s an emerging genre in literature? Don’t get me started please! I’m going to coin a new Medical acronym: CTS, for Conspiracy Theory Syndrome. In the worst of cases, behavior is marked by delusional, paranoiac visions of hidden agendas and government agencies out to get us. CTS can be treated by gratuitous amounts of overly prescribed and popular psyche-active drugs, or in some cases a swift slap in the face followed by a shoulder-shaking “SNAP OUT OF IT!” from a close friend. But I digress…

 

Cynicism and CTS aside, all this brings to mind a best-practice in government (yes those do exist); a well-used website called FedBizOpps for Federal Business Opportunities at http://www.fbo.gov/.

 

It seems there are laws which require most Federal Bids, called solicitations, be posted on a publically accessible platform so that anyone qualified can participate in the response. The solicitations target those firms with matching NAICS codes, or North American Industry Classification System. This is simply a code that matches the type of firm you have. For example, there are codes for Consultants like myself. I have a virtual agent set up in FBO that sends me notifications and links to all Solicitations with my code. Every day I get email from FBO regarding new or revised Solicitations. According to FBO, at this writing there are more than 31,700 active Federal Solicitations. The Solicitations are fairly uniform regardless of the originating government source. All this lends an air of fairness and uniformity; quite lacking in the civilian sector as I have eluded. Wouldn’t it be cool if such functionality existed and was practiced in the civilian MRO world? If necessary you could outsource the gate-keeping to manage the expected big number of respondents; in case you are staff challenged.

 

Bottom line? You will have greater assurance that you got the best deal for your airline. It may be that competition is increased, further tamping prices, and getting your airline the best deal. Neat, eh?

 

Now, I know that many of you are going to say that this-or-that website was tried, exists, or is emerging. Agreed, but why then aren’t most airlines on board with those, or a broader base of respondents targeted? Why is the behavior continuing? Regardless, leave a comment. I hear all the time how your comments are appreciated and they add insight and useful information.

 

Psst. Don’t look around, but just between you and me, I heard from an undisclosed but reliable source that the NSA is monitoring the aforementioned flawed bidding practices. It seems there is a link between secretive groups seeking the economic collapse of our nation and the unexplained continuing bidding practice. Just yesterday I’m sure I saw a drone overhead being controlled from a person behind that grassy knoll and…nah, it can’t be…

 

Over ‘n out

Roy Resto

Fully Profiled on Linked In at:

www.linkedin.com/in/royresto

Governmental Agencies provide a host of services including, but not limited to Certifications and Inspections. Certifying Fish, Meat, Airplanes, Repair Station Applicants, Aircraft Parts, Health and Sanitary Inspections, Air Traffic Control, and Hospitals comprise just a short list of those services. Most commonly, the continuance of business relies on those certifications, services, or inspections. This brings us to the current ‘sequestration’ environment. In the media we see rising alacrity among business leaders and trade associations regarding the apparent slowdown of those governmental services; pick your industry, and you’ll likely find such evidence. Frankly, during a time when governments have a clear mandate to do whatever it takes to stimulate business and therefor their economies, it seems inconceivable to engage in legislation that would manifest predictable, collateral damage to the efficient conduct of business, but here we are.

 

Although the term ‘sequestration’ is associated with the US, there can be no mistaking the fact that ‘sequestration’ is clearly equated with the ‘austerity’ measures widely reported now by so many nations, so the phenomena reported herein is really a global occurrence. There can be no question that as the slowdown of governmental services becomes entrenched, economies are affected, and the frustration of business leaders mounts, there will be a call to privatize the performance of those services.

Note that the title of this blog infers the acceleration, not the onset of such privatization. For years there has been what I’ll characterize as ‘privatization creep’ of this trend, and in case you think there are any untouchable fields, consider a sampling of the following existing areas:

• Air Traffic Control: In many parts of the world this is a private enterprise. A very good example is NAV CANADA. This from their web site: “NAV CANADA, the country's civil air navigation services provider, is a private sector, non-share capital corporation financed through publicly-traded debt. With operations coast to coast, NAV CANADA provides air traffic control, flight information, weather briefings, aeronautical information services, airport advisory services and electronic aids to navigation.”
• Air to Air Refueling of Military Aircraft: Look at this web site: http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/vms/
• Fighter Aircraft Aggressor\Adversary Squadrons: Yes, there are some private firms who are contracted to fly fighter aircraft profiles against our own fighters for training purposes, mimicking flight maneuvers, aircraft, and tactics of anticipated threat nations.
• Space operations: This used to be the exclusive domain of government and military operations. Launches, satellite operations, and now even resupply of space stations are being carried out by privately contracted firms.

If, in the past, the trend was merely a creep, watch it accelerate. So, who will champion the charge to privatization of certain governmental services? I predict the following:

• Trade Associations allied with the industry affected.
• Politicians whose constituents and contributors are affected businesses.
• Entrepreneurs who see an opportunity to fill the gap.
• Prominent business leaders whom are spokesman for their respective industries.

The natural evolution of the privatization process involves the likely outcome of the following:

• The government agencies whose services have been outsourced (yes, lets introduce the maligned “O” word in the discussion) now assume oversight and enforcement roles; a task they are already likely to be comfortable with.
• While we’re at it, let’s introduce another dreaded but critically important word into the mix, Fees. You will pay for those services, but in return expect timely performance, and a true customer-business relationship.
• Competition among service providers will produce new efficiencies and innovations which government providers were not optimally motivated to generate.
• Legislators may require governmental agencies to increase activities whereby certain activities are ‘delegated’ to private designated persons, AKA ‘designees’, or similar Organizations. The FAA’s existing procedures for Designees such as Designated Engineering Representatives (DER’s), Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DAR's), and Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), whom are already empowered to act on behalf of the FAA, may become the model for such delegations by other agencies.

In many countries, civilian government workers are represented by unions. In the current sequestration/austerity environment, there is the appearance in the media that those unions or workers may engage in slowdowns in an effort to exacerbate the effects of the sequestration/austerity measures, and to gain public support to remedy those measures. If so, those groups should be careful that the purported slowdowns may actually result in hastening the call to privatize.

 

For our ASA members, there is a story worth reciting. In the early 1990’s, when the ‘bogus parts’ issue was getting huge attention in the halls of Congress, the media, and FAA, one of the gaps identified in the processing of aircraft parts was that middlemen distributors (including Stockists and brokers) were unregulated, unlike manufacturers and operators which were, and continue to be highly regulated. It was thought that if unapproved parts were going to be infiltrated into the aviation system, this unregulated link was the likely place. I was working at a major airline at the time, and distinctly recall the emerging arguments and positions taken by various parties regarding how to close the unregulated distributor gap. One of those positions was a strong call to have the distributors regulated, much like manufacturers, repair stations, and operators. This would force them to implement aviation-style quality systems, and to also have a degree of oversight by the regulators. At the time it was estimated that there were about 2000 distributors globally who fit the bill of unregulated aircraft parts distributors. It did not take long for representatives of the regulator to share that unless there was a corresponding huge increase in their budget necessary to regulate and surveil those many more entities; a highly unlikely outcome, the regulated option was not viable. Then a curious thing happened. We all got a draft copy of the FAA’s AC 00-56, “Voluntary Distributor Accreditation Program”. At the airline, we had received our draft copy via the retained services of the Air Transport Association, and I was tasked with writing our airline’s position on the draft. It did not take long before we were sending out notices to our aftermarket suppliers expecting them to become accredited or face suspension from our approved suppliers list.

 

We often hear from government agency administrators that problems are most successfully addressed only with the cooperation of industry. I continue to herald that the FAA’s AC 00-56 was historic in establishing a government-industry cooperation model which effectively addressed a huge problem back then. Perhaps it’s time to apply such problem solving creativity to the current sequestration/austerity environment.

 

Make it happen,

 

Roy RESTO

Fully profiled on Linked-In

www.linkedin.com/in/royresto

According to the book “Slang: The Topical Dictionary of Americanisms” by Paul Dickson, during WW II the use of slang by American and Royal Air Force flyers got so deep, that the newspapers had to run occasional articles to point out that bombs were eggs, anti-aircraft balloons were pigs, student pilots were kiwis, etc. Unsurprisingly, Dickson points out that aviation contains a great deal of slang or jargon, and this extends to our colleagues who are directly involved in the vocation of sales or purchasing of aircraft parts.

For anyone involved in sales or purchasing, price is the primary behavioral motivator affecting nearly every action. Any factor that can enhance or detract from a stated price will be leveraged for negotiation. Such is the use of the terms “Factory New” and “New Surplus”. These describe the status of the part, and common condition codes are FN and NS respectively. We should share straight out that these two terms have no regulatory definitions.

Whenever I try to bring sense and order to an issue, I defer to Royboy’s Hierarchy of Aviation Definition Needs. In their order, these are:

1. Defined by aviation regulation
2. Defined by aviation standards such as Published Quality or Technical Standards
3. De-facto use

By the way, after having completed my Military and Post Graduate studies, there was a time in my life when I thought that if I heard the term “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” one more time, my body would engage in reverse peristalsis (Slang: puke, ralph, barf, up-chuck, hurl). Picture Royboy’s Hierarchy within a pyramid for flashbacks.

Having already established that FN and NS have no regulatory definition, is there anything reflected in published standards? Not really, but what’s out there? I’m a fan of the many definitions contained in the Air Transport Association’s Specification 106, commonly referred to as ATA Spec 106 titled “Sources and Approved Parts Qualifications Guidelines”. What are some of the relevant definitions contained there?

NEW: A product, assembly, accessory, component, part or material produced on conformity with approved data that is accompanied by a manufacturer’s material certification at the time of sale, and has no operating time or cycles

NEW-UNUSED (SURPLUS): A product, assembly, accessory, component, part or material produced on conformity with approved data which has been released as surplus by the military, manufacturer, owner-operator, repair facility etc., has no operating time or cycles, and may be accompanied by the manufacturer’s certification at the time of sale, and which is being sold by a person other than the original equipment manufacturer.

SURPLUS: Indicates a specified quantity of an item which is over and above that required to meet forecasted stock requirements in support of normal stock operations

Discussion of New Surplus: From the ATA language, we can make some reasonable statements regarding the characteristics of a NS part; they are:

• The part is new: it has no operating time or cycles
• The part is ‘surplus’ in the minds of the current owner of the part as defined above
• Most importantly, that owner was someone who had the potential to use the part; to install it, such as an aircraft or engine manufacturer, airline, repair station, or military operator. This is the key differentiator.

For a moment, assume for this discussion that my use of the term ‘distributor’ means a distributor who does not have the potential to use or install the part as would an airline or repair station. Below is a chain of custody flow scenario to show what should be the part’s stated condition code:

New Part>Sold to a Distributor>Sold to another Distributor>The part is still represented as New

New Part>Sold to an Airline>Sold to a Distributor>The Part is now represented to the market as New Surplus (NS)

Discussion of Factory New (FN): Deferring to Royboy’s Hierarchy of Aviation Definition Needs, our discussion must reflect de-facto use, since there is no regulatory or aviation standard definition. FN has always inferred the ‘freshness’ of the part; in other words that it just came off the factory line with its birth documents. There is great variance in opinion as to how long this condition code should be carried. For example, a distributor receives a quantity of parts directly from the factory line, and some of them remain unsold on the shelf. Three years later a part sells; is it still ‘Factory New’?, How about two years later or one year later? For most people, saying a part is FN after it has sit on the shelf for three years probably crosses the line of credibility, and should be sold as New vs. Factory New. So what’s reasonable regarding the time line of how long to call it FN?

There is another widely observed de-facto practice we should perhaps borrow from to establish the line of credibility as to when to change a part’s condition code from FN to New. For parts with Airworthiness Tags, certain customers want the tags to be no older than 2 years. The often heard phrase, is to send the part back out to a service provider to have its tag ‘refreshed’ or to get a ‘fresh’ tag. If you apply this common threshold to FN parts, you could call it FN for up to 2 years from the date on its birth paperwork.

HIERARCHY OF SALES AND PURCHASING PRICING:

For devotees of Pyramidal Hierarchies, here’s another, the pricing hierarchy. I’m placing it here in this blog because some of you not involved in purchasing or sales may be wondering why are there such coded distinctions in the purchasing/sales community? The unique codes were created to reflect pricing strata. From highest to lowest, here is the hierarchy, Ceteris Paribus (all things being equal):

• FN (Factory New)
• New
• Rebuilt
• Overhauled
• Repaired, Inspected, Modified/Altered (all 3 commonly referred to in the purchasing/sales community as ‘serviceable’)
• Repairable
• As-Removed
• As-is

Reality Check: Note that I said Ceteris Paribus, all things being equal when referring to the pricing hierarchy. In reality, the market establishes price, and the market is pretty dynamic. Again, for the non-purchasing/sales community, the only purpose in inserting this information is to give some indication as to why there are so many condition distinctions; it’s strictly financial.

POTENTIAL ABUSES: With all this established, we have to spend a little time giving an overview of how some of these are routinely abused. In all fairness, some of these are intentional, and some are not; some result from greatly defended positions, you decide.

• Parts are represented as ‘New’, but the trace or chain of custody of the part shows it should be ‘New Surplus’.
• Parts are represented as FN, but have been on the shelf for an unreasonably long time; they should be sold as new.

Where money is involved, the temptation to engage in dodgy (English slang for ‘not to be trusted’) transactions will exist. On the other hand, in the absence of clearly defined terminology such as might exist in regulations, the potential for variation in parts representation is great.

I know many of you have opinions on these topics. Don’t hesitate to leave comments on the blog site!

Time to leave (Slang: Bug out, split, vamoose, peace out, hit the road, pull chocks, take off, skedaddle, beat it, bail, cut out, mosey, pack it in, scram, see a man about a dog )

Roy Resto is fully profiled on linked in at:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/royresto/

Some gestures are universally understood. When a person with first aid skills observes another person at a restaurant frantically clutching their throat, that is a universal sign that aid should be rendered to extricate the offending victual from the patron’s airway. One of my callings in life is to let drivers know when one of their taillights is out. I’ll pull up alongside and gesture with a circular motion for them to roll down their windows, whereupon I inform them of the condition requiring further maintenance. That circular-motion gesture continues to be universally understood, even though most cars these days have electric windows. When it comes to understanding C of C’s, however, it seems that these documents are not so universally understood.

 

I have often overheard conversations between sales/purchasing persons describing the types of documentation to be expected with a shipment. “C of C” is quite common, but not all C of C’s are created equal, and in some cases, not worth much. The following discussion refers to C of C’s as may be expected from a manufacturer or distributor of new or aftermarket parts.

 

WHAT DO THESE MEAN?

• Certificate of Conformity
• Certificate of Compliance
• Certificate of Conformance

CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY:

Certain words in aviation carry a great deal of weight, such as the term ‘Airworthy’. Another term with considerable gravity is ‘Conformity’. When someone attests that an airplane, assembly, part, repair, or alteration conforms, they are generally stating that it conforms to one or a combination of the following:

• Drawings
• Specifications
• Approved Instructions
• Industry standards or approvals
• Aviation Regulations
• Company standards
• Government Approvals

In the aircraft parts sales world, these are the characteristics of a Certificate of Conformity:

• They are issued by a manufacturer. Note: some distributors, such as those with extensive fastener sales, are equipped to make determinations of conformity. But the vast amount of Certificates of Conformity are issued by the manufacturer.
• They state that the part conforms to some of the subjects cited above
• They are signed
• The person signing is ‘authorized’ by the manufacturer to do so.
• They are indeed most valuable as the document to determine airworthiness.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE:

Usually, these are affirmations that the supplier has complied with your purchase order. I’m found to scratch my head while wondering about the worth of this type of C of C. Excuse me but remember your Business Law 101 classes? Is a Purchase Order a contract? Yes it is. If you have not accurately fulfilled the PO, you have not fulfilled a contract, so such a Certificate of Compliance seems wholly superfluous.

 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE:

These seem to fall somewhere between the two previously discussed types.

 

REALITY CHECK, PLEASE:

Greatly clouding this discussion are the following realities:

• There are no regulations that state one or the other C of C applies, or that language must follow certain guidelines. Because of this:
• You’ll often see the terms mixed from one supplier to another
• Some suppliers such as Distributors, Brokers, or Stockists use the term Certificate of Conformity on their own documentation, but they have not, nor are equipped to make such determinations of Conformity.
• In referring to their own documents, some distributors use the term C of C, when they should be using the term “Material Cert.” (Such as an ATA Spec 106 cert.).
• Some agreements and contracts require the supplier to provide a specifically worded C of C, but there is no harmony in this language either. Of course in this case you must comply with that agreement or contract.
• Any C of C usually does not look like a ‘certificate’. The term harks back to the day when indeed, these did look like frame-able certificates with ruffles and flourishes at the margins, and a few still carry this format. Regardless, the C of C statement may be a tiny 4-font paragraph, or in a Material Certification made to resemble an 8130-3 or EASA/CASA/TCCA form 1.

THE REGULATED WORLD OF CONFORMITIES:

Up to now we’ve basically confined our discussion to the distribution of aircraft parts. If it seems there’s not much uniformity in that world concerning C of C’s, then my subtle hints have not been missed. For persons not involved in the distribution of aircraft parts, there really is a world of regulated conformities. These typically involve, but are not limited to, activities such as the following:

• The qualification of new parts, engines, or aircraft undergoing the certification process
• The inspection of, and declarative conformity statement that an aircraft or part thereof, which has undergone modifications or alterations, has met the requirements of the approved data, and conforms to that data.

In this world, statements of conformity, language, and the forms to be used are highly regulated by the applicable Civil Aviation Authorities.

 

BEWARE THE DIFFERENCES

The question becomes, What value do you place on C of C’s and why? Consider the following, re-summarized:

• Some persons use an ATA Spec 106 Material Certification (or a non-copywrited variation) and call this their C of C. In the landscape version, these look amazingly like an 8130-3 or EASA/CASA/TCCA form 1. Unenlightened recipients of such a form may place undue value on these because of this resemblance. These are not airworthiness documents! These ‘certs’ do have value however, as a form which summarizes that the supplier (such as a distributor, broker, or stockist) attests to the information regarding trace, condition, and last certifying company, among others.
• I’ve read some C of C statements that are so weak, I’m seen to gesture a roll of the shoulders and accompanying ‘So what?”, worthless. Many years ago during a meeting of the FAA’s Suspected Unapproved Parts Steering Committee (now disbanded) of which I was a member, an airline buddy presented a compilation of about a dozen actual C of C statements from as many sources. There were great variations which continue today, so beware!

As with the great variation in C of C statements, there is variation in written processes and procedures, agreements, contracts, legal reviews, and in some locales, laws. This blog is not meant to pre-empt those, but to be food for thought. Feel free to post your comments on the blog site; they are welcomed.

 

Back to gestures. Have you noticed, since face to face social interaction has been greatly supplanted by electronic social media, the dominance of hand, bodily or facial gestures is on the wane? Because of this, the reaction has been the immergence of those emoticons; yes my lips are pressed and my head is shaking from side to side ;-)

 

 

Over ‘n out

Roy ‘Royboy’ Resto

www.linkedin.com/in/royresto

When I first drafted this blog, I considered using the formal term “Recruiter”, but then I thought someone might think this was an article about signing up to join the military. On the other hand, it is neither about the practice of taking and preserving a person’s head after killing them.

 

I have the pleasure of working with a Staffing/Recruiting firm called Division 10 Personnel and Aerostaff.net¹. Aerostaff.net has a specialty in recruiting and staffing for the Aviation industry which is why I’m writing this blog. I have come to observe some behaviors of candidates on the market which detract from their efforts to gain employment, and other behaviors which aid those efforts. Here’s a few:

 

•  GET ON LINKED IN: Linked In is among the major tools used by Recruiters to locate candidates. Take the time to accurately post all the information about yourself. Compare yours with others profiles for refinement. Request recommendations and endorsements from friends and colleagues. Keep it updated. Look at mine, for example. Also:
  • If you are on the market, unemployed, say so
  • If you are employed, but would not mind being discreetly contacted in case of a match with an opening, in your profile for Contact Preferences, make sure “Career Opportunities” is left open. Nearly everyone does this commonly.
  • Did I mention you can get all this PR using the free features of Linked In?
    
• Resumes/CV’s: I am not going to give advice about formatting these. If you give a draft to ten persons, you’ll get ten varying answers. Use any number of services to assist in drafting it. On the other hand, my strong recommendation is that every resume/CV should be customized for the particular opening.
  • Carefully read the job description, and for those aspects you feel you meet, amplify your resume/CV to highlight the match. For example, suppose a portion of a Job Description says “Familiarization with Certification Regulations highly Desired.” Don’t just parrot the requirement verbatim, but list those specific regulations you have worked with or around citing chapter and verse. This is impressive and tells the reader there is an obvious match to the requirement.
  • A recent Forbes.com article estimated that 40% of all resumes aren’t altogether above board^2; that’s a polite way to say lies. Some of the most common resume/cv lies involve degrees, dates, exaggerating numbers, increasing the amount of your previous salary, inflating titles, lying about technical abilities, and padding grade point averages, among others. Royboy’s advice: Don’t do it. Background and reference checks are common. Your reputation is precious; guard it.
  • Particularly in aviation and for former military, don’t leave any acronyms undefined. Never assume an acronym is so common it does not need definition.
  • Address gaps in employment date continuity.
  • In some parts of the world, posting your picture on your resume is expected. In other parts it is considered vain.
  • Regarding accuracy, it is disappointing and raises flags when your profile on Linked In, or resume posted on Monster (or any other resume-hosting service) does not match the resume/CV you sent.
  • Have someone with good English skills proofread your draft. We all know of the shortcomings of spell check.

If you get speared by a head hunter, don’t roll over and play dead (Yes, I’ve exhausted my puns for this blog). Recruiters, who have the relationship with the hiring firm, want you to get hired, and will work with you to prep you or improve your resume for that first meeting or phone interview. You can count on discreet contacts with your recruiter.

 

Advice to job seekers could easily fill 10 blogs, which is not the purpose of this forum, but as a hiring manager or job seeker, if you have any pet-peeves or interesting insight, please leave a comment on this blog.

 

Over ‘n out

 

 

1: http://www.division10personnel.com/

http://www.aerostaff.net/

 

2: http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/20/resume-lies-work_cx_kdt_06work_0523lies.html

When I first drafted this blog, I considered using the formal term “Recruiter”, but then I thought someone might think this was an article about signing up to join the military. On the other hand, it is neither about the practice of taking and preserving a person’s head after killing them.

 

I have the pleasure of working with a Staffing/Recruiting firm called Division 10 Personnel and Aerostaff.net¹. Aerostaff.net has a specialty in recruiting and staffing for the Aviation industry which is why I’m writing this blog. I have come to observe some behaviors of candidates on the market which detract from their efforts to gain employment, and other behaviors which aid those efforts. Here’s a few:

 

•  GET ON LINKED IN: Linked In is among the major tools used by Recruiters to locate candidates. Take the time to accurately post all the information about yourself. Compare yours with others profiles for refinement. Request recommendations and endorsements from friends and colleagues. Keep it updated. Look at mine, for example. Also:
• If you are on the market, unemployed, say so
• If you are employed, but would not mind being discreetly contacted in case of a match with an opening, in your profile for Contact Preferences, make sure “Career Opportunities” is left open. Nearly everyone does this commonly.
• Did I mention you can get all this PR using the free features of Linked In?
  
• Resumes/CV’s: I am not going to give advice about formatting these. If you give a draft to ten persons, you’ll get ten varying answers. Use any number of services to assist in drafting it. On the other hand, my strong recommendation is that every resume/CV should be customized for the particular opening.
• Carefully read the job description, and for those aspects you feel you meet, amplify your resume/CV to highlight the match. For example, suppose a portion of a Job Description says “Familiarization with Certification Regulations highly Desired.” Don’t just parrot the requirement verbatim, but list those specific regulations you have worked with or around citing chapter and verse. This is impressive and tells the reader there is an obvious match to the requirement.
• A recent Forbes.com article estimated that 40% of all resumes aren’t altogether above board^2; that’s a polite way to say lies. Some of the most common resume/cv lies involve degrees, dates, exaggerating numbers, increasing the amount of your previous salary, inflating titles, lying about technical abilities, and padding grade point averages, among others. Royboy’s advice: Don’t do it. Background and reference checks are common. Your reputation is precious; guard it.
• Particularly in aviation and for former military, don’t leave any acronyms undefined. Never assume an acronym is so common it does not need definition.
• Address gaps in employment date continuity.
• In some parts of the world, posting your picture on your resume is expected. In other parts it is considered vain.
• Regarding accuracy, it is disappointing and raises flags when your profile on Linked In, or resume posted on Monster (or any other resume-hosting service) does not match the resume/CV you sent.
• Have someone with good English skills proofread your draft. We all know of the shortcomings of spell check.

If you get speared by a head hunter, don’t roll over and play dead (Yes, I’ve exhausted my puns for this blog). Recruiters, who have the relationship with the hiring firm, want you to get hired, and will work with you to prep you or improve your resume for that first meeting or phone interview. You can count on discreet contacts with your recruiter.

 

Advice to job seekers could easily fill 10 blogs, which is not the purpose of this forum, but as a hiring manager or job seeker, if you have any pet-peeves or interesting insight, please leave a comment on this blog.

 

Over ‘n out

 

 

1: http://www.division10personnel.com/

http://www.aerostaff.net/

 

2: http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/20/resume-lies-work_cx_kdt_06work_0523lies.html