webslave

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.

So, it was always going to happen that a ride at Dreamworld was going encounter a run-of-the-mill stoppage and have the media pick it up: http://www.theage.com.au/queensland/reports-buzzsaw-ride-at-dreamworld-stuck-with-passengers-onboard-20170306-gurndt.html But, for me the key difference here is I see no mention of TRR, or even Buzzsaw's identified safety issues from the audit. Oversight by the journo, do you think? I was all geared up for the shot-game for the inevitable "this comes just weeks after an incident on the Thunder River Rapids ride where..".

In my observation there's no subtlety in reporting, and as a result the distinction between reliability and safety does not exist in the media. It would be easy for us to say that some attractions have reliability problems, but we would stop well short of saying they have safety problems - whereas the media would show no distinction.

Yeah, you're probably right - although it depends on how much you're using. It's not exactly expensive stuff to make - wouldn't take much to get someone to come in and certify your manufacturing and testing procedure which will cover off the liability (and should also cover off the risk given it's easily repeatable). Given you'd also be going through it quickly your risk footprint is smaller because you don't need to store it for as long.

Haha, I knew that would get a reaction. But no, clearly you should never be knocking that stuff up in a backyard. On the other hand, if you're using significant amounts of it there would be nothing to stop your organisation from investing in the right equipment and ingredients to be able to make it safely. Smoke fluid is pretty well understood chemically, and provided it's prepared correctly (which is hard unless you've got a proper production set-up) it's safe enough. Kids, please don't make your own. You'll get away with it a few times before you find out why you shouldn't.

Yeah, it's lighter than most concentrations of mist so will move with a trivial amount of air. On the plus side you won't end up damp from it. It does leave a residue though, and tends to hang around a while in the air. As you've rightly pointed out maintenance is an issue. Fluid cost also factors in, but in an operation like that you'd probably be just as well off making it yourself.

Could there perhaps be a calling for a Star Tour-esque 'attraction' that does a bit of a high-level 'behind the scenes' on a few scary looking rides to pump up how great the maintenance staff are, how second-to-none their tools and procedures are, and the obsessive level of care they take? Could soak up a little bit of crowd capacity, promote transparency to guests, and actively counter some of the exploitative press. Another way of looking at it I suppose is that you've got people captive in queue lines with little to do - could that be a time where you could be pushing facts/figures/behind the scenes content at them via videos? It wouldn't be a huge break in theme given we frequently push safety videos to people standing in line - I'm sure there's a way that it could be done tastefully. Another way to go (although I'm not sold on it) would be if you had a resource internally (paging @Slick) that could whip you up something short and sharp that covers what topical ride stoppage there was today (eg; Giant Drop) and why it was not moments from disaster with the intent that it be shared via social. If there's one thing people love almost as much buying in to bullshit media hype it would have to be smugly debunking bullshit media hype - and what you ideally want is for the videos to appeal to people enough that when they see someone carrying on about it they will drop it in the comments as a "no ass-hat - everything is fine".

When we visited Sea World a couple of months ago we arrived at 9:45am and left a bit before 2pm. I don't feel like I particularly missed anything. The middle of the park is like a maze, the jet ski show a yawn, Affinity not noticeably different to Imagine, the dining options in the plaza are uninspiring, and like the other parks the refill stations for soft drink are under-sized and too few.

Moved to other thread.

I wouldn't do it, not because the experience doesn't appeal to me, but because the meals appeal to neither me nor my wife. Seafood? Yawn, pass. As for $175/head - I'd expect to pay around $100 for meals + beverages like that, so the $75 is the experience I'd guess.

I'm partial to Scooby-Doo-Over, myself.

If I had to guess I'd say he's criticising GL for the same reason that some have criticised DD - on the basis that both feel very 'controlled'.

We talked about this capitalising every word thing. You need to try a bit harder here - saying it's just habit doesn't cut it.

Top tip: did you know you don't need to start every word with a capital letter? There's a lot more to it, but I reckon if you start small by just putting a capital letter at the start of a sentence you'll be well on your way to internet glory.

I love it - a complete outcast in all facets of life, instantly reviled (twice) by people he need not know what he looks like, sounds like, has a sexual preference for, or hangs out with, but it's still everyone else that is at fault. That's what we call victim culture, folks.

I'd be thinking something like a videogame world because there's not really a lot of competition for that theme right now, but the hard part would be finding a license. Nintendo might be a nice idea, but is probably quite pricey. If you could land a Minecraft license you'd probably do pretty well - the appeal seems to be fairly broad, and the theme is also fairly open to interpretation. A bit of cross-over with Microsoft would probably do alright here, too.

I personally chalk it up to the rides not being open. I wouldn't buy a ticket to visit at the moment solely on that basis, and I have to imagine others are in the same boat.