LeeroyJenkins

At the minimum get a new RPC.

No offense was taken or intended. I disagree with your assessment and this may be due to tweaks to the 2018 model. I wanted to provide pictures to you so we could all be on the same page.

mathrick, I do not doubt your account. I will get you pics of my new Wings tomorrow so you can see what we are working with in 2018.

An inch of stitching can make a world of difference. Freebag needs to rotate before leaving reserve tray and bottom corners are preventing that motion. It personally think that stitching plays bigger role than PC in this case. Javelin bottom corners are sewn too. Wings are a little bit more. People say boxy reserve trey without comparing it to other very similar designs. Thanks for the pic. The new PC is on the left for those wondering.

And yet, there still has been no SB, nor any other form of communication on that matter that I know of, no materials for the riggers that I've seen mention that, nor does the spare parts catalogue make any mention of that (and what the compatibility between the new/old rigs and RPCs might be). I don't think advertising the RPC of all things as a "rigging breakthrough" on their product page counts, especially since the RPC is widely recognised to be one of the worst in the industry (at least before the redesign, so at best your headline boils down to "not quite as shitty anymore"). All I've ever heard about the redesign is unsourced hearsay here on DZ.com that differs from poster to poster. They also don't seem to have changed the ridiculously large and heavy cap I think? Which has a significant effect on the system's performance, so there's that. And yes, the corners are ridiculous and stupid (and really don't look like they're gonna be harmless if your position is not ideal) and so is the reserve flap design which is simultaneously a needless PITA to rig and inspect for the jumper AND somehow more likely to come open in freefall. Just about the only thing that I can think of that they actually fixed is the "thread the RSL/ripcord under the cutaway housing" thing, which in fairness wasn't super difficult to follow, but hey, one more thing someone somewhere won't misrig. I really wish I saved it. I know it’s floating around here somewhere. There is a set of pictures comparing the old RPC to the new RPC and is is quite different. What’s hard to inspect and comes out during freefall? I think you mean the reserve pin flap. I have no clue how that would come undone. As for the corners, I’m not a rigger, but when I compared my javelin to my wings they are nearly identical. The only noticeable difference is the bottom corners are stitched in a little more. About an inch on the wings. The top corners look the same.

That's not true. The reserve PC is doing what is supposed to do. It is fully inflated. Its pull force is determined mainly by its size. You are ignoring the other variables in the equation. Falling on the back (so the bridle is not pulling on the bag directly as the first point of contact is the jumpers body), and a tight reserve tray with boxed corners. I doubt any other reserve PC of that size would pull the reserve out in that particular situation. Reserve systems are intended to work when deployed in any orientation. A reserve that only works when you're in a perfect arch is not an effective system. There are tons of videos of people having AAD fires and such while on their back and the reserve deploys just fine. Regarding pack tray size, overstuffing the reserve tray, while not ideal, is quite common. I have seen countless jumpers who overstuff their rig so they can go with a smaller container. Their reserves still work when they deploy them. They deploy just fine when terminal*

The pilot chute mainly. I know Henry(sunrise rigging) builds a good solid system. I just have zero confidence in the pilot chute otherwise a great system. Thanks for the reply. Most people I've asked say the "boxed in corners" nice to see a change. The incident with the line over happen almost 5 years ago in 2013 and the original video was from 2012. Wings has since redone their PC design and have even updated it again I believe in 2017.

Which part is it exactly that you don’t have confidence in? I’m always curious when people say things like this.

^^^ This. Also, when you cutaway from a big straight-flying main parachute, your forward speed is around 20mph and your vertical speed is around 10mph. The reserve pilot chute presents its side to the relative wind. No pilot chute has a lot of drag in that configuration, but pilot chutes with more fabric do a little better than those that are 50-50 fabric-mesh. --Mark I now jump a Wings and used to jump a javelin. I feel like the difference in reserve tray is vastly overestimated. From my examination the only real difference is the bottom corners have about 1" more of bar tack. Everything else is the same. The best argument I have ever seen for a MARD is low speed reserve deployments. the PC needs time to build up enough force to extract the free bag.

I don't think security is the entire goal. The other is to set things up so that email can be preserved and gone back over in case of investigations. It's like a lot of businesses that have the rule "if it's about this company it stays on our servers." This way they know that the backups keep a copy of who emailed who about what. Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner! As has been stated previously in this thread! Rushmc, you just going to dodge my question?

He's going to jail today. He is on his way to prison eventually. Unless of course he can give someone higher up to the prosecutor in a deal..... While I don't disagree. Claiming he is on his way to prison while posting about him going to jail is wrong and inaccurate.

Jail, he is on his way to jail. Not prison, don't give anyone ammo with your inaccuracies.

The Russian interference happen before trump was elected president. Another observation I have is that no one is asking why these FBI agents were against Trump. The FBI is supposed to be politically neutral. It is possible that these FBI agents, with their enhanced knowledge of the case, are anti trump or "out to get trump" because in their professional opinion he is a criminal.

I normally don't even have the community tab open.

If he never answers and you don't engage his nonsense until he does answer he will have no audience. If people heard both sides of the argument that would be fine. But they don't they generally hear their side and their side only. Anything outside of that is fake news. Watch this.... Hey Marc: I thought you said collusion wasn't a crime. U.S. Code. "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) Notes: Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 88, 294 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 37, 35 Stat. 1096; Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 178a, as added Sept. 27, 1944, ch. 425, 58 Stat. 752). This section consolidates said sections 88 and 294 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed. To reflect the construction placed upon said section 88 by the courts the words “or any agency thereof” were inserted. (See Haas v. Henkel, 1909, 30 S. Ct. 249, 216 U. S. 462, 54 L. Ed. 569, 17 Ann. Cas. 1112, where court said: “The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful functions of any department of government.” Also, see United States v. Walter, 1923, 44 S. Ct. 10, 263 U. S. 15, 68 L. Ed. 137, and definitions of department and agency in section 6 of this title.) The punishment provision is completely rewritten to increase the penalty from 2 years to 5 years except where the object of the conspiracy is a misdemeanor. If the object is a misdemeanor, the maximum imprisonment for a conspiracy to commit that offense, under the revised section, cannot exceed 1 year. The injustice of permitting a felony punishment on conviction for conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is described by the late Hon. Grover M. Moscowitz, United States district judge for the eastern district of New York, in an address delivered March 14, 1944, before the section on Federal Practice of the New York Bar Association, reported in 3 Federal Rules Decisions, pages 380–392. Hon. John Paul, United States district judge for the western district of Virginia, in a letter addressed to Congressman Eugene J. Keogh dated January 27, 1944, stresses the inadequacy of the 2-year sentence prescribed by existing law in cases where the object of the conspiracy is the commission of a very serious offense. The punishment provision of said section 294 of title 18 was considered for inclusion in this revised section. It provided the same penalties for conspiracy to violate the provisions of certain counterfeiting laws, as are applicable in the case of conviction for the specific violations. Such a punishment would seem as desirable for all conspiracies as for such offenses as counterfeiting and transporting stolen property in interstate commerce. A multiplicity of unnecessary enactments inevitably leads to confusion and disregard of law. (See reviser’s note under section 493 of this title.) Since consolidation was highly desirable and because of the strong objections of prosecutors to the general application of the punishment provision of said section 294, the revised section represents the best compromise that could be devised between sharply conflicting views. A number of special conspiracy provisions, relating to specific offenses, which were contained in various sections incorporated in this title, were omitted because adequately covered by this section. A few exceptions were made, (1) where the conspiracy would constitute the only offense, or (2) where the punishment provided in this section would not be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. Special conspiracy provisions were retained in sections 241, 286, 372, 757, 794, 956, 1201, 2271, 2384 and 2388 of this title. Special conspiracy provisions were added to sections 2153 and 2154 of this title. Amendments 1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”."

Don't you believe its wrong to let discourse like this to go unchecked? The us v. them mentality that Marc has. It's not Americans to marc, it is losers and winners. The reason trump is president is people we let these people come out of the darkness, we gave them airtime to spew their words.

Most don't. Seems like enough do. They dont hold him accountable to the topic. They just combat his sporadic talking points. Ask him a question and hold him to an answer. Call out his spin, call out his deflection, call out his dodging. Then go right back to the question. This isn't the press room at the white house, we won't lose are credentials. Treat Rushmc how you wish reporters treated SHS. So how's that working for you? Pretty good. Keeps the convo in one place. We are still on the same thing we started on.

Most don't. Seems like enough do. They dont hold him accountable to the topic. They just combat his sporadic talking points. Ask him a question and hold him to an answer. Call out his spin, call out his deflection, call out his dodging. Then go right back to the question. This isn't the press room at the white house, we won't lose are credentials. Treat Rushmc how you wish reporters treated SHS.

Providing spin and talking points is not answering a question. It is deflecting. Question: Why do you personally make the argument that collusion isn't a crime instead of making the argument the trump didn't collude? Rushmc answer: Both are true. I didn't ask if they were true or not. Trump did not colude and collusion is not a crime. I did not ask if trump colluded, or if collusion was a crime. So you lose on both counts. It isn't a win a lose situation. To make it even easier for you. Why do you personally make the argument that collusion isn't illegal as apposed to the argument that trump didn't collude?

Still waiting..... Most self-righteous people like you always are! All: Guys, why do you engage with someone that isn't capable of answering a question continuously spews talking points? Rushmc: I'll do the hard work for you. All you have to do is bold the section in your next reply that answers my question. Question: Why do you personally make the argument that collusion isn't a crime instead of making the argument the trump didn't collude? Rushmc answer: Both are true. Trump did not colude and collusion is not a crime. So you lose on both counts.

Still waiting.....

The charges. I know that's what you guys live by. But, if I'm wrong, just show me where anybody has put forward evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. You can't do it, I know that but I'll give you a chance anyway Nice attempted dodge. It’s nit s true false question. It requires though. Let’s try this again. Why do you personally make the argument that collusion isn't a crime instead of making the argument the trump didn't collude? Again, I directly answered your questions. So you don't accept the answers, I don't give a fuck! Point being is, you're making the accusations. Show me where Trump has been proven to collude and show me the laws that show collusion is a crime. You can do that and it'll all be over won't it. So the Dodgers yours. I got admit I love guys like you. You're so easy! Copy and paste my question. With your answer directly below it in your next post with absolutely no other input. Why do you personally make the argument that collusion isn't a crime instead of making the argument the trump didn't collude?

The charges. I know that's what you guys live by. But, if I'm wrong, just show me where anybody has put forward evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. You can't do it, I know that but I'll give you a chance anyway Nice attempted dodge. It’s not a true false question. It requires thought. Let’s try this again. Why do you personally make the argument that collusion isn't a crime instead of making the argument the trump didn't collude?

Don’t give him and material to distract. Let me handle him for a bit.

Nice deflection attempt. The next post was a nice attempt at spin too. Let’s try this again. Answer the question. Why do you personally make the argument that collusion isn't a crime instead of making the argument the trump didn't collude?