webslave

It's always a worry when you get reports and Governments talking like this because you end up with regulation for the sake of having regulation. When you've got a report asking why you need a ticket to operate a forklift but not an amusement ride then you've clearly got decision makers asking the wrong questions. Who the fuck cares if you need a ticket to operate a forklift? The actual question is whether there's some level of critical training that operators are not getting that we need a licensing system to be able to track compliance with. If so, what is that critical training? We're not talking about mistakes here (they will happen, and the method of work should explicitly allow for this) - we are talking about a system of putting people in charge of machinery that they are missing critical information to allow the safe use of.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c5_1502534350 "About 20 Palestinian kids were lightly injured yesterday in Ramallah as the merry-go-round had a malfunction. This isnt the first time there is such failure at this amusment park. The place was temporary closed." That's just a tad scary...

I can only imagine it's drama-chasing. I mean, what else could it be? The best course of action for the park is to mention it as little as possible. Don't give a forum for people to turn up and make noise about it. Nothing whatsoever to do with respect.

I'd go with somewhat unlikely, but probably stop short of highly unlikely. In reading your latest I did think it interesting that on one hand earlier you called attention to how many pieces one of the SE trains is in right now for maintenance as something that most people wouldn't know, but then went on to say that it's pretty well out there. I know I'm cherry-picking here and not trying to give you a hard time on that point, merely just illustrating that I don't think it's as 'out-there' as you might think. I know I've seen videos from the parks saying they do this stuff, but I don't put a great deal of stock in that in all honesty. What about, on the other hand, if the metal fatigue was brought on in a very short time period because of a different modification (approved or otherwise) on the ride transferring more load than expected to this area? Or what if the last time the ride had been racked for transportation it was done incorrectly which weakened the area? Just two possibilities I've literally plucked out of nowhere - they may not fit the cause you have in-mind, but I have to at least assume they might be plausible.

Formatting isn't really a substitute for communicating better. If I'm failing to get your point here then I will take responsibility for my part in that. To pick you up on an item in your latest - you say as a theme park fan you can say that you know it happens; but is that really as a fan, or as an employee? After all, I could just as easily be both and not be able to say for sure on either. I think you're looking for an employee, rather than a fan. I don't think we can yet say the operator of this ride clearly was not doing inspections - after all; they could have been but the inspections were performed incorrectly, or the issue could have been one that would not have been apparent at the time of inspection. There's a lot of supposition going on here, and I would imagine as someone in the industry you'd probably already know better than to make this type of commentary off the back of a couple of social media images and videos.

Okay, sure, but I haven't seen any proof of even a general mostly visual inspection from the parks in this thread - but I wouldn't claim it therefore doesn't exist. That you work in the parks helps you see it on one side of the fence, but you can't therefore conclude that because you can't see the same on the other that it therefore doesn't exist. Re: Worksafe paperwork you'll note incident reports generally make reference to the manufacturer's recommended maintenance procedures, particularly if they haven't been followed.

What sort of answer are you looking for, and from whom? I see paperwork for an inspection posted earlier, as well as a maintenance briefing by the manufacturer asking for checks and work to be carried out. That would at least suggest to me that *something* is being done. I've seen commentary earlier that the major shows have an engineer on-site. Worksafe paperwork I've seen other times also makes reference to maintenance procedures. By the same token where's the evidence of what the parks are doing? (I should point out, by the way, that I had always assumed travelling rides were less safe than rides in the parks but have had to admit that I had nothing to back up that assumption)

I guess that's kind-of the point I'm making; it can't be as cut-and-dry as travelling rides having poor maintenance. What if this one was chalked up to metal fatigue that was previously unidentified? After all, planes have been brought down by the same thing despite the regimen of the system. I just don't think we say draw a line down the middle.

Were we still not awaiting the findings of the Dreamworld incident I wouldn't find such a line of argument to be so hard to swallow.

Okay, so are we talking about an issue with the engineering from the manufacturer now, or are we talking about maintenance? I don't see how using an item for necessity rather than fun has any bearing on whether it's safe to use or not. It might be your own distinction, but it isn't a widely held one. Are the parks doing more/different maintenance to what the manufacturers recommend? If so, why?

To be fair, singling out amusement rides for that type of maintenance requirement whilst ignoring a huge range of other potential risk activities could be seen as a bit of a stretch, no? I mean, do we think public transport is getting an annual tear-down to component level and NDT happening? Airlines, perhaps. Trains? Very dubious. Cars? Probably not. What about balconies? Nah. Agree, having eyes open to this type of stuff is smart business. I think we probably need to accept that parks and travelling amusements are two completely different businesses and although there can be a crossover in the rides the maintenance requirements, maintenance procedures, and operational drivers are entirely different. We can talk about travelling rides getting a quarterly teardown and NDT if we want to, but will it stop incidents? Do the procedures the parks undergo stop incidents? I understand that saying that proper testing and maintenance is going to be too expensive so let's not do it is never going to be something palatable, but at the same time we also can't deny that we need to strike a balance. After all, we already strike a balance on this anyway.

I just watched this video; Full disclosure: I saw the first film, and I liked it but at the same time I gave it a pass on the basis that it was the best of a bunch of cinema that didn't appeal to me at all at the time and I had free tickets that I needed to burn. As I walked out I said to my wife that I thought it was good, but that it was not something that I was going to be in a rush to get a hold of later on. That proved fairly true. I've not seen the second one, but probably will get a hold of it in a few months if I'm at a loose end. Further disclosure: I have ridden ToT at DCA, but nowhere else. I've never seen a single episode of the Twilight Zone. ...what the hell did I just watch? If I'd not seen the image of the sign out front earlier in the ride I would have no idea that this was meant to be themed to a break-out. Did this video lose something of the experience and is there one out there that better showcases it? God, I hope so. In my estimation the sole motivator for riding this ride would be an affection for the characters, or the motion of the platform. It doesn't tell me a story in any meaningful way, which is a real strange one for Disney given I can usually work out the start, middle and end of their rides. It's all the more strange because we aren't talking about trying to do storytelling with something linear and with a lot of space like a roller-coaster, but instead we're working in a confined space with plenty of digital ability and absolute control of a variable ride experience. To watch this video: I don't have to know or care what the Twilight Zone is about. The storyline is coherent and accessible to me - it's a hotel that in the old days was hit by lightning which meant it ended up strange and haunted. That's why the inside of the place looks so old-world Hollywood glamorous. I've gotten into the elevator which is a piece of machinery that I understand the rules of as a member of the public. I'm taken and shown some cool visuals that reinforce the whole haunted hotel theme with narration to back it up, and then the rules of the elevator break. It's got good longevity because the hotel is stuck in the past anyway, and even if the Twilight Zone show itself is not exactly timeless I'd suggest that the theme music is - and even without the show tie-in the narrative is able to stand alone. You might be tempted to think that I'm anti-progress for Disney, and see this ride as a hasty cash-in on something popular and without substance. Not so. I rode ToT once, and have no real affection for it any more than I would any other ride at any other park. If they want to go with GotG for a ride experience I have no problem with that, although I do think it's better suited to a more traditional motion simulator. I think @djrappa is right on the money here.

I would have to wonder what sponsorship like what you're discussing would be worth - my tip is not very much. In most cases it's not really on-brand for most brands, and doesn't give them much of an opportunity to engage with the punters. I'd be more inclined to think there's contra rather than cash changing hands in a lot of these deals. Realistically - how many people would sponsorship like this reach in a given year? Take that figure and work out what that would cost you to reach via other channels (eg; social media paid advertising) and consider that many other channels give you at least some ability to target, not to mention properly spruik your wares. Given it's probably not a great deal of money, I would have to wonder why a park might bother pursuing it given the costs of commercials in tee'ing something like that up. You've also got maintenance, the effect of downtime, and - god forbid - the collateral cost to the brand should the attraction be involved in something like TRR.

This one?

I'd have much rathered Dreamworld summarize for each of the big nine what the audits revealed, and what was done. For now all I know is they were closed a long time (in many cases), and work was required (in some cases). If it was safe in the first place tell me nothing needed doing (it's a good news story), if it needed a few minor things then tell me that too (I can take comfort in hearing that the stuff you were fixing is thin end of the wedge) - just don't leave me to guess what was wrong that needed it closed all that time.