Lockheed Martin · Primly Community

Lockheed Martin onsite / final round in 2026: how it really goes, four panels and a surprise

frontend_fran · 5 replies

Wrapped up an LM onsite (virtual) for a senior software engineer role in their Aeronautics division, Palmdale CA, back in March 2026. The job req was for embedded software on avionics systems, which I'm mostly qualified for by background, though my last two roles were ML engineering. That context matters for how I experienced the day.

The format Four panel interviews, 45 minutes each, with a 15-minute break between rounds 2 and 3. All virtual, all on Zoom. They sent the schedule 5 days before the onsite, with the names and titles of each interviewer.

Round 1: Technical -- algorithms and C++ Two interviewers. Opened with a walkthrough of one of my projects (I chose something safety-relevant to match the context). Then two coding problems, shared via a Google Doc. Nothing exotic: one was about parsing a structured message format, the other was about finding a bug in provided code. Clear medium difficulty. They asked follow-up questions about time complexity and I had to explain tradeoffs between two approaches.

Round 2: System design Already wrote about this in the system design thread but short version: domain-specific prompt, not distributed systems at Google scale. Real engineering constraints, not abstract.

Round 3: Behavioral Very structured STAR format. See my other post on this topic. The safety and ethics question came here.

Round 4: Senior staff engineer conversation This was the surprise. Half of it was genuinely conversational: what do I find interesting about avionics software, what I think about real-time operating systems, my take on DO-178C compliance. The other half was soft leveling: how I'd handle being the most senior technical person on a team without explicit authority to drive decisions.

Debrief and timeline They told me debrief would happen within a week. It took 9 business days. Heard back with verbal offer on day 10. Written offer 3 days later.

Overall read The loop is thorough but not hazing. Every round had a clear purpose. The interviewers were prepared and professional. Slower cadence than big tech, but the signal was higher quality in my opinion. You're not trying to survive 6 rounds of competitive algorithm torture.

5 replies

sec_sasha

DO-178C compliance coming up in conversation is a big signal about the actual work environment. that's rigorous avionics software certification. if you don't know what it is going into that role you'll be learning fast.

contractor_kai

9 business days for debrief is fine, actually pretty normal for a company that size with internal approval chains. people stress about timing here when they should focus on what they can control.

corp_refugee

the round 4 conversation on RTOS and real-time constraints is interesting. did they go into specifics or just test for general awareness? like did they ask about VxWorks or just 'talk me through real-time scheduling'?

ml_mike

general awareness level. I mentioned VxWorks and ARINC 653 and they seemed satisfied. nobody quizzed me on implementation details. it was more 'are you aware this world exists and can you hold a conversation about it'

director_dee

the 'most senior technical person without explicit authority' scenario is a classic test for whether someone can drive alignment through influence vs just relying on title. answer it by talking about how you build trust and create technical consensus, not about escalation.