Swift Plus 225

[mfuller 0]

any one know about a service bulletin(s) for a swift plus 225 (DOM 6/91)?

thanks

mike

[slotperfect 7]

Here you go . . .

Arrive Safely

John

[riggerrob 558]

I have inspected a few dozen Swift Pluses since that Service Bulletin was issued. None of them were bad enough to need re-sewing.
Still, I would not jump any Swift Plus until a rigger had thoroughly inspected the bar-tacks.

[mfuller 0]

thanks for the replies and the bulletin.

mike

[aironscott 3]

I think that it's important to review the SB as Slotperfect has posted the link to here.
What the SB says is that acceptable bartacks are down the middle of the fingertrap on the cascade. Anything else must be repaired (replaced).

Many a Swift+ has come into the loft that has needed bartack replacements in accordance with the SB. Note that this is Mandatory. No wiggle room. Even though I have yet to find a flawed bartack to fail, the replacement is nonetheless mandatory.

What is a surprise to me is how many rigger have never even heard of 9401 and missed it over the years.
There is a Swift+ in my loft right now that requires bartack replacements that had been packed by the local master rigger for almost a decade. Its not the first and won't be the last.

Keep your eyes open people.

Aaron

“God Damn Mountain Dew MotherFuckers!”

[pchapman 261]

Interesting opinions!
Aironscott found many a Swift Plus needed rework, while Riggerrob inspected a few dozen with none needing rework.

The original bulletin was a bit vague:

Quote

“Good” bartacks will have a centered appearance and ample material on both sides of the stitches.

I've only dealt with a few Swift Plus's over the years, but recall that ParaFlite bartacks generally looked wider than I'd like. But it was so consistent, one sort of got used to it as 'normal for ParaFlite'. The way the issue was presented to me (through the CSPA rigger bulletins), I had learned to look for bartacks that didn't capture the finger trapped line, and never found one where the stitches seemed to miss. Is that really quite the same as having "ample material" as in the bulletin?? What's just ugly and not ideal, vs. actually significantly understrength?

I'm not passing judgement here. It's just an example of where experienced riggers have different interpretations.

(While I focused on the bartack width, Aironscott also noted the issue of the bartack needing to be centered. I can't recall enough to comment on that.)

[riggerrob 558]

Sure I have seen plenty of ugly bartacks on Swift Plus reserves, but I have never had one slip during inspection.
When inspecting Swift Plus reserves, I grab the C and D lines - above the finger-trapped joint - and try to pull (20-ish pounds) them apart.
I have never been able to pull those two lines completely apart.
Remember that most manufacturers (5-cell Swift excepted) only expect bartacks to hold lines in trim while they are un-loaded. As soon as lines are loaded, finger-taps do not slip.