We did this before, Xyla's at it again

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
In most states it is state fire regulations adopted from NFPA by the state fire marshal. Some are local like you posted.
But the only federal law is in FAAs FAR 101, and DOT transportation laws.

Fred's post falls about , as it is only indirectly controlled by NAR and TRA at their launches. Also Wikis are naturally in error at times.

I don't like this video she posted, but I want to make clear just what the rules cover and where.
Ok.
 
Joe and Xlya aren't even engineers and they are Kicking it on YouTube!
Xyla has a BSE in General Engineering. She supposedly focused in mechanical and aerospace.

But I think that was the point of post #122- she isn't working as an engineer. I don't know anything about her college or her degree, does she have the qualifications to get licensed. I know that in my state there are colleges that will confer an engineering degree but those people are definitely not qualified to enter the field that I work in. Most states have rules that you can't practice engineering in a field that you aren't qualified in. If you have a general engineering degree does that mean you can practice in all fields of engineering? or does it mean that you aren't qualified to be licensed for any field of engineering?

Some readers here might remember the Champlain Towers condominium collapse in Florida about 2 years ago. I've looked at the drawings for that building and it was improperly designed from the start. Another Florida building designed and built during that era collapsed during construction killing some workers. That building was designed by some retired NASA engineers who were essentially practicing in an area that they weren't qualified for. They didn't know what they didn't know and it killed some construction workers. In my practice I see a lot of engineers who I don't think have the educational background to prepare them for the job they are trying to do. Colleges have watered down the requirements for graduation in order to attract more students and have higher graduation rate, to the detriment of society. When I was in college I took every course that was available in my field whether required or not. The minimum requirements for graduation were higher than they are now and I took about 21 hours more than required just so I would get the education in those areas.
 
Only about 25% of engineers have a PE, and most of those are civil engineers. Especially in aerospace it's not particularly helpful, as aerospace its often across state lines, and there isn't great agreeance with defense and the NSPE. So while there may be issues with having 25,000 engineering students, I don't think the number of PEs in your state is the determiner of if they're going to be good engineers.
I don't know the percentages. I understand how someone working for Boeing would not need a license. I work on projects that have to meet the building code so I have to be licensed and there are usually civil engineers on those projects but there are also mechanical engineers and electrical engineers who also have to be licensed. In my field there could very well be similar numbers of structural, mechanical and electrical although there are probably a lot of road projects and such with civil engineers involved that don't require the other disciplines. In my company it is about 3:1 or 4:1 structural engineers vs. civil engineers.
 
In most states it is state fire regulations adopted from NFPA by the state fire marshal. Some are local like you posted.
But the only federal law is in FAAs FAR 101, and DOT transportation laws.

Fred's post falls about , as it is only indirectly controlled by NAR and TRA at their launches. Also Wikis are naturally in error at times.

I don't like this video she posted, but I want to make clear just what the rules cover and where.
I would like to like this twice.
 
OK - I guess we're all cool with [with the appearance that] a TRA BOD member is selling motors to "anyone."
Message received.
 
Last edited:
Me reading the endless lawyering in this thread:

Oh No Please GIF by Late Night with Seth Meyers
 
Most states have rules that you can't practice engineering in a field that you aren't qualified in.
Unless by "practice engineering" you mean perform one of the few jobs that requires an PE license, I don't believe that's true. With my EE degree, I've held six engineering jobs, in six states, and never had to convince anyone except the hiring manager that my education and experience were adequate to do the work. Two of them (including my current one) involve(d) system integration of pneumatic and hydraulic brake systems, which I was able to get hired for due to my prior experience of electrical system integration. None of it has needed a PE license (which I don't have) and none of it has been subject to state laws regarding who may or may not hold the position.

As for Xyla's degree in "General Engineering", yeah, I wonder what that really means. I'd never heard of such a thing until I read it in Xyla's bio.
 
As for Xyla's degree in "General Engineering", yeah, I wonder what that really means. I'd never heard of such a thing until I read it in Xyla's bio.
It means I went to school somewhere for something impressive. Which is not meant as a insult to xyla.
 
No, just an insult to the school? It means a curriculum, some list of required classes, some list of electives from which a minimum number must be picked, undoubtedly some other requirements as well. I know what those things were for an EE degree when I went to school, and how much of it was different from one engineering major to another (nearly all of the freshman year and half of the sophomore year load was common to all of us) along with some of what the other majors (ME, CivE, ChemE, etc.) had to take and could take, and I wonder what it consists of for "GenE". I'm confident that it's not just some school somewhere handing out degrees because they sound impressive.
 
In most states it is state fire regulations adopted from NFPA by the state fire marshal. Some are local like you posted.
But the only federal law is in FAAs FAR 101, and DOT transportation laws.

Fred's post falls about , as it is only indirectly controlled by NAR and TRA at their launches. Also Wikis are naturally in error at times.

I don't like this video she posted, but I want to make clear just what the rules cover and where.
I get that about the rules and regulations. My first answer was very in general and vague. He asked if he should or had to follow NAR or TRA rules if he's in his backyard. I said yes rather than type out everything, you don't have to follow saftey rules but there are like you said laws and regulations you can break in YOUR backyard that can get you into trouble. Thats all I meant, do you have to follow them? No.
 
Unless by "practice engineering" you mean perform one of the few jobs that requires an PE license, I don't believe that's true.
The state rules are actually written in the state's laws, but they are in the laws related to practice of engineering and what does and does not require an engineering license so in general you are correct. The state dictates what requires a license and what does not. And if you don't have a license you can't advertise to the public that you are an engineer. If your name was Smith, you started a company to install air conditioning systems, and you called it "Smith Engineering", the state would have an issue with that and you would get fined unless you and your firm were licensed under the laws relating to engineering licenses.

(I keep saying "the state" out of convenience. That is what the laws are in Texas. Most if not all states are probably similar but maybe not exactly the same although California and a few other states that follow California are much stricter in some regards.)

This line of discussion started relative to which engineering disciplines required licensure. It is somewhat ironic that the disaster that spawned the origins of engineering licensure was actually in a plumbing system and not related to civil engineering at all.

There are probably similar analogies in other fields, for instance if you work in medical research you probably don't have to have a medical license.
 
Last edited:
So how is this different than angling the rod away from the flight line if you're flying an RTF Estes X-15 on a D12 and calling it a heads-up flight? You're taking precautions because there's a good chance it's not going to go perfectly. Bigger motor? They have that covered... she is/was a L2, and it doesn't matter anyway if it's a commercial venture; Da Rules have exemptions for that. Otherwise, a few of use SoCal L3's would probably be doing quite well as consultants in the entertainment industry.
 
It means I went to school somewhere for something impressive. Which is not meant as a insult to xyla.
I don't think this qualifies as an insult but I would ask her why she chose that school and that degree path. If she wanted a career in engineering I would suggest that she should have picked a degree more specific to what she wanted to do and then picked a school that is recognized as a leader in that field.

However per other discussion there are lots of engineering jobs that would be picking the person's qualifications more than the degree. That doesn't work in my field. A lot of engineering jobs seem to be providing training on the job, we can't do that. A person needs to know what they are doing when they come to work in my field.
 
So how is this different than angling the rod away from the flight line if you're flying an RTF Estes X-15 on a D12 and calling it a heads-up flight? You're taking precautions because there's a good chance it's not going to go perfectly. Bigger motor? They have that covered... she is/was a L2, and it doesn't matter anyway if it's a commercial venture; Da Rules have exemptions for that. Otherwise, a few of use SoCal L3's would probably be doing quite well as consultants in the entertainment industry.
Yes the main difference is the size of the motor and the fact that it is guaranteed to not fly well or recover well. Just because a person has a L2 doesn't mean they can do irresponsible things. The path to get a L2 is set in place so a person learns to not do irresponsible things.
Whoever runs the launch facility should have looked at what they were doing and suggested that they be behind protection during the launch.
 
So, I guess the distinction is 1) in how the phrase "all launches" is understood, and 2) the understanding of the scope of rules in general.

1. Does "all launches" mean any time a rocket goes up, period? Or does it mean any time a rocket goes up in situations connected with the organization? Most of us understand "all launches" to mean the latter, and to me, the former seems bizzar.

2. Is the safety code a governing document for all launches (see #1) or is it code governing members' behavior in all rocket activity? If the latter, it would seem that anyone working professionally in space launches, large sounding launches, or missile launches must renounce TRA membership.
Well, if "all launches" meant only situations connected with the organization then why do they talk specifically about all launches separately from TRA events? It would be easy for TRA to simply remove the "all launches" reference from their safety code and stick to saying this is what we expect from anyone at a TRA sanctioned launch.

Yeah, sorry, you are. You're only required to follow all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Following the safety code is a good idea, but not a requirement. It's a good idea for at least three reasons:

1. Following the safety code ensures that you are probably complying with those government regulations, and stand a chance of being forgiven minor violations due to having made a good faith effort (but that's not guaranteed and only works once in any case).

2. Your NAR or TRA group insurance doesn't cover you should something go wrong unless you're following the safety code.

3. Saving the best for last, it contains very good safety advice.
None of my comments in this thread have been targeted at what a flyer is legally required to do. I am only taking about what two amateur organizations expect from their members or from people participating in one of their events.
 
If she wanted a career in engineering I would suggest that she should have picked a degree more specific to what she wanted to do and then picked a school that is recognized as a leader in that field

Wow. That’s pretty conceited.

I don’t know what her situation was prior to going into college, but some people are lucky to be able to go to college at all. Not everyone had the means to go to a college that’s “recognized as a leader” in a field.

We’re struggling, daily, to put our son through college locally. It’s the best we can do and we can barely make it happen. He’s in his second year and I have no assurance we can continue until he’s done.

Perhaps General Engineering is a major intended to impart a broad background like “Engineering Science and Mechanics”.

Regardless of what she’s got, she obviously knows how to use it.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of what she’s got, she obviously knows how to use it.
One of the reasons I am astounded to learn that she doesn't have a day job. I've seen her workshop/garage, and she's got more and better equipment than I do (I'm still hoping to get a 2nd-hand 3D printer soon). Her woodworking skills when she was building her trailer convinced me she might have been a professional carpenter.

She seems to enjoy rocketry and has some on-screen personality. She's certainly more engaging than say, the terribly-boring lady they have representing Virgin Galactic -- she could easily be the social media expert for a pro launch firm. All those firms have PR staff, and yet she's doing more than they are.

Now, admittedly, having worked in the TV Industry long ago, I'm well aware that everything I watch is a lie -- so she could be getting way more help in the background than the videos imply, and she, being the front-man for the group is shown as doing all the work. But I've heard before on this forum that she is "the real deal", so I'm going to admit I may be wrong.

So once again, I have to wonder how someone has all this potential, tons of skills, and yet is trying to live off Youtube money when I don't think she has a million subscribers yet. Oh, but she does have a Wikipedia page that...... mostly sounds like it was written by her. <shakes head>
 
I don’t know what her situation was prior to going into college, but some people are lucky to be able to go to college at all. Not everyone had the means to go to a college that’s “recognized as a leader” in a field.

We’re struggling, daily, to put our son through college locally. It’s the best we can do and we can barely make it happen. He’s in his second year and I have no assurance we can continue until he’s done.
I came from a small town. My parents were poor, nobody in my family had graduated from college before. I worked in my father's business to be able to afford college. I went to a state school so tuition was low, it just happens that our state has at least 3 colleges that are very good for engineering.
 
One of the reasons I am astounded to learn that she doesn't have a day job. I've seen her workshop/garage, and she's got more and better equipment than I do (I'm still hoping to get a 2nd-hand 3D printer soon). Her woodworking skills when she was building her trailer convinced me she might have been a professional carpenter.

She seems to enjoy rocketry and has some on-screen personality. She's certainly more engaging than say, the terribly-boring lady they have representing Virgin Galactic -- she could easily be the social media expert for a pro launch firm. All those firms have PR staff, and yet she's doing more than they are.

Now, admittedly, having worked in the TV Industry long ago, I'm well aware that everything I watch is a lie -- so she could be getting way more help in the background than the videos imply, and she, being the front-man for the group is shown as doing all the work. But I've heard before on this forum that she is "the real deal", so I'm going to admit I may be wrong.

So once again, I have to wonder how someone has all this potential, tons of skills, and yet is trying to live off Youtube money when I don't think she has a million subscribers yet. Oh, but she does have a Wikipedia page that...... mostly sounds like it was written by her. <shakes head>
That amazing workshop was partly, or maybe largely, or maybe mostly, or maybe entirely provided by sponsors expecting publicity in return. I've heard her mention the manufacturers names and that she likes the products, thank them for the stuff, and move on, without sounding like a commercial. I guess that must be enough to satisfy the companies. :jealous:
 
One of the reasons I am astounded to learn that she doesn't have a day job. I've seen her workshop/garage, and she's got more and better equipment than I do (I'm still hoping to get a 2nd-hand 3D printer soon). Her woodworking skills when she was building her trailer convinced me she might have been a professional carpenter.
Youtube channels that appear to be attracting subscribers manage to get a lot of equipment for free. I like the woodworking channels and was watching a video this morning where a girl got a free large bandsaw for her new shop. If you have a successful channel and are making good money from it you can afford to buy a lot of tools yourself since that is your "business".

Some youtube channels are a lot more upfront about equipment that was given to them, others seem like they try not to mention it. Some youtube channels get sponsorship for specific videos in the form of new equipment or new supplies. I was watching another youtube channel this morning where the guy was building a table and he said that the roll of oak veneer he was using was provided by the company that makes it.

I've watched enough of her videos where it appears that she has the talent and skills to do the work and it is likely she is doing the work and not a team of people behind the scenes.
 
That amazing workshop was partly, or maybe largely, or maybe mostly, or maybe entirely provided by sponsors expecting publicity in return. I've heard her mention the manufacturers names and that she likes the products, thank them for the stuff, and move on, without sounding like a commercial. I guess that must be enough to satisfy the companies. :jealous:

That is what happens with the Ham Radio Tubers ; get stuff to promote
 
Watching her and that BPS guy cake a pound of grease on that CTI liner and then proceed to beat the hell out of the casing with hammers and wood for 2 hours to get it on the liner assembly was a special kind of special.

Like.....really special kind of special special special.

I sat there just watching.....mouth open....shaking my head.

Her going fake crazy as she unpacked the grains from the box from Chris, as she repeatedly kept calling them explosives; yes, they are, but she was implying something far different as a means of sensationalizing. Then reading the comments from people who don't know any better, clamoring about them hammering on explosives. Really does amazing things for the visibility of our hobby and setting a wonderful and candid example.

/sarcasm
But she’s pretty 🤣
 
Back
Top