Green Lantern incident at MW

[Levithian]

As far as VTP'S not being responsible,  well I'd say that may not be entirely the case.

The fact is our  Park (in this case mw) contracted S&S for an El Loco whilst demanding it be on the condition that they could provide the biggest version of such Coaster,  somewhat raising the stakes, as historically the Park has always shown, despite our relatively modest Aussie Park budgets  

Facts have and will find that this Accident occurred due to the proportions of this unique ride including greater track dimensions and double breadth cars.  Eventually, this lead to continual strain on the Bogies - ultimately 'uprooting' one from the track,  nearly causing a SERIOUS accident..

Expect the new Green Lantern ride experience to feel much the same for the Rider,  whilst offering less strain to the train with a cross  brace to hold it in tact,  providing greater support to strain from additional weight caused by overhang 

I'm sorry but MW simply has to accept some fault.  This ride is in a way a prototype that the Company demanded and pressured S&S to produce 

 

The manufacturer signs off on anything they produce to be fit for use, no matter what is requested on them. That is the ENTIRE point of quality assurance practices. In an industry like this, companies (theme parks that is) are run on similar principles as the aircraft industry. The manufacturer supplies them with all the technical data for operation and maintenance of the equipment, but the client has zero control of the ultimate design and production process. Everything on an engineering level is the responsibility of the company designing and manufacturing the ride, you can request specifics like changes to capacity and theming, but everything surrounding the design, production and ultimate supplying of the ride is down to S&S. The park is responsible for maintaining the equipment to the level specified by the manufacturer, that is where their responsibility ends. In the aircraft industry it's called compliance, every component that makes up the aircraft has a data file that displays how it is built and what components are used. Everything is documented and listed right down to what nut, bolt and washer to use and where to use it. There are no substitutes and components are pretty much only ever sourced directly from the original manufacturer to make sure that their are no issues with quality or production which could cause failures when supplied components by an untested outside source.

We don't know exactly what part caused the critical failure, but the problem seems to have something to do with bogeys not the frame or chassis, in which case, I fail to see what they could cross brace for additional support when everything is essentially transmitted through sets of wheels and the components that they are fixed to before being attached to the chassis. At some point, it's all going to come down to maybe a few inches of steel holding everything together, the only way to lessen the load on components like this would be to add more bogeys or increase in size/width.

As said by others above though, you can't maintain everything to the manufacturers design AND be responsible for a failure. If the design is at fault, it's 100% the manufacturer to blame even if your maintenance may not have picked up the failure occurring. If that were the case here, it becomes one of negligence with the park being responsible for not picking up the failure before an incident occurred. The failure is still ultimately a design flaw and the operator has no responsibility with regards to that, it's only that their practices (or those of their employees) were negligent in allowing the accident to occur. In cases like that, you can say the operator was partially responsible for the accident occurring, but not the cause if its a defect.

Those are usually treated as too separate things by the way because it's often extremely difficult to prove something was overlooked which had already experienced a failure due to manufacturing or design defect. It essentially works as intended, or it doesn't and it breaks due to wear and fatigue. When dealing with fasteners, it's also extremely difficult to sight a failure until it has actually occurred. That is, unless it's actually broken, cracked or damaged, and the fastener as released or moved. It can appear (and still function in reduced capacity) to be fine, but internally it has started to fail. It's why components are replaced in specific intervals regardless of their apparent condition. The component (like a bearing) might be good for thousands of hours of use as supplied, and when checked still functions correctly without issue. BUT the component still ends up being replaced at a specific service period to avoid failure occurring. It's how you build redundancy into critical systems. You want to rebuild and replace the equipment long before it ever reaches the end of it's service life regardless of it's current condition. Lots of waste, but it stops things like planes falling out of the sky (and is supposed to stop roller coasters from derailing too, heh).

[Zanstabar]

I would say that this would be a similar situation to if you have a faulty phone. 

If it breaks due to a design and manufacturing issue, then I tend to find that the manufacturer will repair it or replace for free or lower cost because it was their fault and their fault only.

If I drop my phone in a pool of water, then it suddenly starts short circuiting, the manufacturer won't replace it at a cheaper rate because it was my fault and my fault only.

 

I would love to hear something about the cause of the accident, but I guess we've already covered that. 

[Levithian]

Regardless of the end result. Somewhere, someone is going to end up with one hell of a bill. Most likely it'll all end up with insurance companies footing the bill, but it'll just differ as to who is actually paying out.

[Theme Park Girl]

Facts have and will find that this Accident occurred due to the proportions of this unique ride including greater track dimensions and double breadth cars.  Eventually, this lead to continual strain on the Bogies - ultimately 'uprooting' one from the track,  nearly causing a SERIOUS accident..

This has been my belief since the day of the accident as to its cause. I think it is visually obvious how much strain these wide carts + gravity would be putting on their tiny wheel assemblies, I still find the ride mind boggling to watch in action. 

However in saying that, I agree with the other folks here that S&S would have to take sole responsibility if it is due to a ride design flaw. If the ride couldn't physically continue working longterm under said stress (something that, as the first coaster of its kind designed to carry double the load of its predecessors, could never have been tested - it sounds like they went with theory alone) then it should never have been approved and sent to a theme park in the first place.

Tbh the thrillseeker in me is happy GL is reopening (I've only been on it once!) but I am also shocked, as I didn't expect it to without the trains or track getting some serious overhaul. It looks to me like not much has been changed. Hopefully the kind folk at S&S have done their homework and know what they are doing this time round lol... :/

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

as the first coaster of its kind designed to carry double the load of its predecessors, could never have been tested - it sounds like they went with theory alone) then it should never have been approved and sent to a theme park in the first place.

Like with anything these days - engineers are able to design and simulate almost every stress the component will be exposed to before it is physically built. I have no doubt such a large company who has pulled of so many different ride designs would have determined that the bogey design was within limits of the stresses placed on it. So either - we had a poorly manufactured bogey assembly that should have failed QA, or a poorly maintained one.

These companies don't work with 'theory' alone, and you can hardly call the computer aided design process 'theory'.

I didn't expect it to without the trains or track getting some serious overhaul. It looks to me like not much has been changed.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the track... so I didn't expect them to do much with that. The wheel assemblies is where the problem lies, i should think - and in that scenario - we've had numerous reports of 'trains are gone' 'trains are back' 'trains are on the track' 'trains have water dummies' - so i think we can safely assume the wheel assemblies have had some work done - offsite - and been thoroughly tested.

What we need is a really good quality close up photo of both old and new assemblies to see if anything is noticeably different.

[Theme Park Girl]

Like with anything these days - engineers are able to design and simulate almost every stress the component will be exposed to before it is physically built. I have no doubt such a large company who has pulled of so many different ride designs would have determined that the bogey design was within limits of the stresses placed on it. So either - we had a poorly manufactured bogey assembly that should have failed QA, or a poorly maintained one.

These companies don't work with 'theory' alone, and you can hardly call the computer aided design process 'theory'.

My point is that you can't really test that a rollercoaster will last the test of wear and tear over time unless you have had enough time actually pass by to validate that it will. Sure, you can make predictions based on knowledge and past experience, but you cannot guarantee, especially in a situation like this where a coaster is the first of its kind. I am sure every new release comes with a higher element of risk than other pre-established designs. 

In this case they obviously got something wrong.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

^based on assumption and deduction, not fact.

I'm not suggesting it is or is not the cause, but in the absence of an official finding of fact, we can only speculate that it is a design flaw, and not a lack of maintenance or other similar issue.

[iwerks]

Why couldn't S&S have built a test track somewhere?

It's good that GL appears to be heading to re-opening as it's an excellent ride and so much fun.  Are we presuming the trains are the original stock and they've just got new wheel assemblies? 

[MickeyD]

It seems that by some (but not all) on here my point was misunderstood.

I never said MW should accept fault - well at least not entirely - perhaps only some of it. By presuring the Developer to come up with something bigger and better than they have ever done before, on condition with the hand shaken pay cheque waiting at the finish line...

Oceangirl, I reckon you are on the mark saying maybe more time should have been invested in R&D - but what if the potential Investor had the attitude of 'make it work or the deal's off'! ???

Case in point

[Flea]

Slightly off topic and maybe an unfair question to ask as I've only ridden GL a handful of times, but does anyone think going with 8 person cars wasn't worth the added cost? From what I've seen there are never more than 2 cars on the circuit at one time and there is always prolonged stacking. Smaller cars, more efficient loading, less stacking = same capacity? Right?

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Why couldn't S&S have built a test track somewhere?

Considering that is the bulk of the ride cost - it's a very expensive exercise.

When you produce 1000 Ferraris, you can afford to build 4 or 5 of them for impact and crash tests.

When you produce 6 El Locos, a tester isn't really in the budget.

Slightly off topic and maybe an unfair question to ask as I've only ridden GL a handful of times, but does anyone think going with 8 person cars wasn't worth the added cost? From what I've seen there are never more than 2 cars on the circuit at one time and there is always prolonged stacking. Smaller cars, more efficient loading, less stacking = same capacity? Right?

Efficiency of their operations is lacking, I totally agree - however I feel like the double-wide cars are worth it - and i'm not even considering capacity when I say that.

Purely for the 'floorless' \ 'wingrider' aspect - not having track under you when you sit on the outside edges is the best, plus (as has been noted) the forces on the edges are also elevated.

I'd like to see them pull off a 6-wide or 8-wide car - but no way they could do that with the current track design - it would have to go bigger.

[webslave]

...Movie World should accept some liability?  What, are you crazy?  Even if you were 100% liable you don't accept liability!

But in this case - as has been explained ad-nauseum - the scope of work for installation of GL does not place any reliance on MW's engineering resources as part of the design of the ride, and as a result does not place them in a position of liability for a design defect.  Providing a specification for what you require does not constitute design work, and therefore does not attract liability.  They are within their rights to specify ride vehicles that are made out of glad-wrap and marshmallow just as the manufacturer is within their right to tell them they're dreaming.

That's it - there's nothing else.  There is no legal precedent suggesting that a customer request creates a binding responsibility upon a manufacturer to create it, nor will there be.  Quite the contrary - to knowingly build something (for the most part regardless of whether the customer was aware or not; except in cases where you've explicitly written to the customer to explain the design flaw and likely ramification and had them sign off on it - which doesn't happen) that was not fit for purpose (safe operation) if that's indeed what transpired is negligence.

What you're likely looking at here is four and a half outcomes;
1a:  Manufacturer did not know and could not have known that there was a potential for a ride vehicle to exceed its operating capabilities.
1b:  Manufacturer did not know and should have known that there was a potential for a ride vehicle to exceed its operating capabilities.
2:  Manufacturer knew and had devised appropriate procedures for the customer concerning maintenance and operation to mitigate the risk of component failure which were not correctly followed.
3:  A freak accident caused by point-in-time conditions.
4:  Fabrication or manufacturing defect.

Edited October 19, 2015 by webslave

[Original]

But are we sure it was MW that asked for them, or did S&S already have this design in planning/ready to go? I'm sure it wasn't just MW that wanted this, it's also beneficial for S&S because they can then sell the model with an extra option. Just like how Mack can sell their wild mouse with a lift instead of the standard lift hill.

 

Or what about SE, that might be a similar system to others around the world yet carried risk because that design had never been built before. 

 

I'm just saying we have no idea what pressure was put on S&S to create an 8 seat, if any was at all, and that's something I doubt we'll ever know.

[New display name]

Why couldn't S&S have built a test track somewhere?

It's good that GL appears to be heading to re-opening as it's an excellent ride and so much fun.  Are we presuming the trains are the original stock and they've just got new wheel assemblies? 

S&S Test track.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2chGrSXCw0  S&S 4th Dimension Free Spin Prototype Roller Coaster. 

 

Manufactures build test tracks all the time.   No CAD can ever replace field testing.

[webslave]

But are we sure it was MW that asked for them, or did S&S already have this design in planning/ready to go?

What I'm telling you is the answer to that question is irrelevant.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Manufactures build test tracks all the time.   No CAD can ever replace field testing.

but would the construction of a test track for the El Loco have revealed this fault?

Let's say the cause of the failure was metal fatigue - the ride has operated for over 3 years before the incident. Could they possibly have put the a prototype through that much testing before constructing the MW version?

How much testing would be appropriate?

[New display name]

but would the construction of a test track for the El Loco have revealed this fault?

Let's say the cause of the failure was metal fatigue - the ride has operated for over 3 years before the incident. Could they possibly have put the a prototype through that much testing before constructing the MW version?

How much testing would be appropriate?

I don't know.  What was the fault?

[Levithian]

S&S Test track.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2chGrSXCw0  S&S 4th Dimension Free Spin Prototype Roller Coaster. 

 

 

Manufactures build test tracks all the time.   No CAD can ever replace field testing.

 

It can actually. Running a car on a test track is only going to simulate that it is operating correctly at that given point in time.  Even with accelerometers and stress gauges monitoring operating, it's virtually impossible to test to failure. You are talking tens of thousands of hours of specified usage before failures might occur. How do you do this? if you ran it 8 hours a day and absolutely nothing else on your test track, it would take you years to test something to failure again. That's where computer simulations come into it, they can simulate years of running based off actual data they have taken during testing to pin point failure. Testing on your own track also doesn't factor in the environment which makes a hell of a difference, especially in a hot and UV extreme climate like australia.

Anything that ever happens on test tracks is likely to confirm the operational data that the computer spits out. Not the other way around. They already know how a component should perform, it's designed for a purpose and function and they test it for a certain period; say enough time for the daily, weekly and monthly inspections to pass, so they can say that the component is performing as should. If it passes, it passes. There is no reason to think that a component should fail one month if it passes the previous one. It doesn't have to be run for years before it gets to that stage. If it was the opposite, that essentially invalidates specified scheduled servicing. They maintenance schedules are based off a calculation of the life of components and any adjustments that may need to be made. Some of these might only be quarterly, bi yearly, or yearly. That's a whole lot of time in between if you didn't know exactly what was going to happen. It's also exactly why critical components on roller coasters are replaced BEFORE the lifetime of the part, and anything that goes back into service is crack tested and inspected for defects. I imagine that's why plays a massive part of yearly shutdowns we see. Everything is disassembled, cleaned and sent out for testing where need be. Then everything is rebuilt and components are replaced before being returned to service.

Same thing happens in track design, they can calculate the highest load sections of track without even having to leave the building. If you've watched them crack testing a track, they don't do the whole thing. Everything is given an actual inspection for visual defects, but only the sections with the highest loads that pose the greatest risk are stripped to bare metal and crack tested. The rest, if there are no visual signs of fatigue, pass.

To put it another way. You buy a car expecting it to run for at least 10+ years (or more!) with scheduled maintenance. Do you think the manufacturer ran the vehicle for 10 years, or do you think they simulated a lot of data and relied on component manufacturers supplying them with parts and components designed to last a specific lifespan? It would take 15-20 years to design and test a vehicle before it was even released. To see how much of an impact computers have had on structural design, you only need to see how long it used to take to design and build a chassis, test it to destruction, then put it into service. Cars used to take 10-12 years from concept stage to the final product release, these days, completely new models (not just a visual change, but a whole new or modified chassis) are done within 3-4 years. When you break down a car into how many components it contains and just how complex the electrical systems have become, having to communicate with so many modules and controllers, it's really not a whole lot different. Design, build, test. If it passes reasonable use and all the data backs up your test phase, you release the product. If failures occur in operation, an amendment is released and a component is replaced with a new updated one. We have the same recalls in the automotive industry, lots of stuff that should meet expectations fails in the real world. Aside from a few really public things recently, most recalls happen without damage to the vehicle or loss of life. Everything about a coaster would be the exact same principle, just scaled up because the chance of a critical failure occurring and endangering life is greater (just like on an aircraft).

I don't think we have to worry anything at all about if old cars were used on green lantern. At the very least, given the down time, they would have required yearly inspections anyway, so even if there wasn't an almost catastrophic failure, they would probably have gone through a major rebuild anyway. Couple that with what ever failed, it would be pretty safe to say that while the cars may visually look the same (even dirty), it's the stuff under them that is where the work would have been done. Driving past this afternoon it looks like they had a car on the lift hill. If someone is out that way during the day, stop by and see if they are doing any running.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Levithian

[Santa07]

my poor poor brain

 

it cant handle that many words

[Reanimated35]

War & Peace v2

TL;DR:

> You can't test for every situation possible in every climate possible.

> Likely that cars aren't rebuilt, just the bogeys/other stuff under the seats

> Then goes on to ask people to check what we already have seen video evidence of in the last couple of weeks.

[Levithian]

No, I meant If they are running, go out and have a look up close. If they made changes and/or replaced anything in the bogeys, you should be able to see it as cars go up the lift if you get right up close to the fence. The footage we have seen of it running isn't close enough to see if anything might be different.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Levithian

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I don't know about War and Peace - thats my average post length.

You make some good points Lev - and was kind of what i was trying to say in terms of building a test track.

[New display name]

“

It can actually”.

 

 

I was not talking about testing for failure.  Testing continues and will continue be used to prove something works.  As per video the manufacture only built enough of the ride to prove the theory of the simulation.  I was answering iwerks question.  AlexB said they don’t build test tracks because they are too expensive and yes they don’t build a whole coaster to test it but manufactures continue to build and test new elements.  If what you are saying is true then why do the manufactures continue to build test tracks?  I know for a fact that most countries don’t except computer simulation as proof that something works.  Being that most things are borrowed only the new designed elements would need to be tested.  

Example time lol.  

The National Construction Code of Australia is fully tested.  So my example is a job I worked on in Brisbane. I will keep it short.  A building that I designed in Brisbane did not comply with the The National Construction Code of Australia.  What we proposed had never been constructed before.  The N.C.C.A says if I can’t comply with it then I have to prove that it will have the same outcome.  So I designed a hotel with all the balconeys and exits on the inside of the buildings.   The building basically had a hole from the lobby up to the roof down the middle.  The N.C.C.A say you can’t do this because in a fire the middle of the building would draw the smoke to the centre of the building where people are trying to exit the building.

So I employed fire engineers to come up with a solution.  The engineers came up with a design from their computer simulations.  The building was approved on the condition that we would run a test to prove that our simulation worked.  Once we constructed the building to a point that we could run the test we called the army in.  The army set of smoke bombs throughout our building and after days of testing it was signed off.

What the hell is skeetafly talking about and what does this have to do with anything I hear you say? There is a comparison.

We did not complete the building, we only constructed the building enough to complete the test before we went any further.

It’s called insurance.

As proven by the video I posted that ride manufactures will continue to test new ride components.

Design simulation is nothing new for engineers, before computers worked out simulation engineers would do the same thing with pen and paper.

As I said, I was answering iwerks question if ride manufactures built test tracks and I said they did.  Which they do.  I never mentioned what they are testing and why they are testing but they do test.

Your first sentence is incorrect “It can actually”.

 

Edited October 22, 2015 by skeetafly

[Brad2912]

Lots of testing today, with and without water dummies

[iwerks]

With regards to testing, I had seen that footage before.  Yeah, you would think that a ride manufacturer would use everything at their disposal in order to test a new ride concept: why not a computer simulation and a real track with elements of the final design? 

Often at Boeing they'll do those forced pressurisation/de-pressurisation tests on air frames until they break or in skeetafly's example of a building design.