Jakev8

Green Lantern incident at MW

630 posts in this topic

For those with a little more knowledge of international incidences and subsequent reopening - do you think prior to GL reopening there will be a publicly published report into what occurred and what resolutions have been made to avoid reoccurrence? Obviously the Smiler incident has garnished a lot of media publicity due to the injuries sustained, yet this has had no media talk apart from the usual hysterical reporting on the day. one could argue that whilst there were no serious injuries that occurred on GL, the incident in terms of potential injury/seriousness was even higher than what occurred on Smiler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes well you're definitely right there, Brad. Regardless of the causes involved with both incidents, Smiler stayed completely intact on the day of its accident, whilst Green Lantern didn't... the thing derailed and partially fell apart whilst in operation. I still think about how lucky those people were to have not been seriously injured or killed :/

I wondered too if an investigation conclusion would be published for this. I remember reading through the one for the Superman Tower of Power years ago (the incident in which Kaitlyn Lasitter had her feet severed when a cable snapped) and it was very informative. Would give peace of mind to everyone knowing the cause of the GL incident and what preventative measures MW have taken. Then again I also wonder how different our laws are in Australia and whether they would be obligated to do so, especially in the event that the cause was due to bad maintenance or something MW did wrong.

That said, I don't think it was, but we can only speculate until they actually tell us what really happened that day and why ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the videos! Great to see it back in action.

Very curious to see what modifications have been made. I initially thought the turn before the first MCBR looked slower, but looking at older videos it takes the turn at a similar speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any statement from the park would speak only in the broadest terms about their commitment to safety. I wouldn't expect mention of any incident.

There may be other information available through other public channels (RTI/FOI) but there's no logical reason that VRTP would share details of a major failure of the ride's safety systems in their PR efforts.

After all, all the wider public knows is that the ride broke down and folks had to be rescued. By virtue of the dreadful, shallow reporting by the media, VRTP dodged a huge bullet with negative publicity from the incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Richard, what Brad and I were referring to was one of these, an official incident/investigation report, not just a final statement by the park. Here's the Superman Tower of Power one as an example. Their investigation was done by the Kentucky Dept of Agriculture (go figure) and they were the ones who released the final report, not SFKK who I am sure would have preferred otherwise since it blamed them for ride negligence. 

http://www.google.com.au/url?q=http://archive.courier-journal.com/assets/B2109690530.PDF&sa=U&ved=0CAsQFjAAahUKEwjBtbbpsr7IAhXj3KYKHVcbCJc&sig2=SjYv4GBG2U6pDpA43Kvr_w&usg=AFQjCNEf6IQx2lMdvZOIBV0ZdECCC3H75Q

I guess we're wondering if something similar will come out for the GL incident, and if it is an obligation to be shared such findings publicly under Australian law? I guess it all depends on who performed the investigation though... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that's exactly what I was referring too. The average punter would have no idea the severity of what occurred compared to say a routine e-stop other than its taken a long time to fix. 

For me, personally, I want to know why it happened, and why it won't happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lack of serious injuries and media interest are two factors that will likely limit the amount of publicly accessible information regarding the incident. Someone with intimate knowledge of OHS might be able to answer this better, but I wouldn't hold my breath for the kind of reports that surface from US incidents.

At the end of the day it has been closed long enough to suggest that it's more than a simple maintenance or procedural issue. That there's likely a design or fabrication issue that has had to be rectified. 

When it does reopen it will have satisfied the park, their investors, lawyers and insurers, plus S&S and their investors, lawyers and insurers. I'd personally take this implicit tick of approval over a government commissioned report. 

An in-depth report would be interesting to read, but I suspect it would say exactly what I've said above, along with 50 pages of metallurgy test results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their investigation was done by the Kentucky Dept of Agriculture (go figure)

In the US, responsibility for theme park and amusement park rides (both fixed and travelling) generally falls to either OSHA or the state department of agriculture.

It's not as odd as you'd think - as the state dept of agriculture is usually the body responsible for the state (agricultural) fair - like Ekka as an example. The fair is (traditionally) an agricultural affair - which is why the RNA showgrounds (home of the Ekka) is short for 'Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association Queensland'.

Rides first appeared at these shows, and so (in the US) the responsibility for administration and compliance fell to these state agriculture bodies. When theme parks kept the trend going, the similarities led to them keeping responsibility for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might have two hopes of finding out more via way of something official. If something ever went to court, at the least the case would be heard and you would have an incite via submissions before it would probably be settled long before it ever made it to court, but this seems very unlikely, or, worksafe (which I think comes under workcover now) will no doubt conduct an investigation into the incident, but as I think there was no loss of life, the findings probably won't be made public as it's unlikely anybody will be prosecuted.
 

One thing you have to remember is it is possible that vrtp isn't responsible at all, but they can hardly come out and say as much. It opens up a whole host of questions about their other rides, and no doubt S&S wouldn't want to be buried in any statement either. I reckon the best we will have is no statement at all. I reckon we will just see a media release saying green lantern is open for business without any mention of the accident or any safety issues. I wouldn't at all be surprised if there was even discussion of a re-theme occurring during down time so the ride could effectively be given a soft launch and announced under a different name. Doesn't look like that is the case, but I reckon first and foremost would be to distance yourself as far as possible from the incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except S&S had Engineers who said 'Yeah that's fine we will totally sell you that'. 

 

In my mind, if Movie World met their obligations as to what was recommended, then they are in the clear.  If they failed in their maintaince  regime then it's their fault.  If there was a problem they knew about before hand they didn't tell S&S about or failed to account for then it's back in Movie World's hands.  

 

I'm a betting man, and I'd be willing to put a sum of money on deficient engineering at the start.  Unfortunately I haven't worked for the parks for many years, and when I did it wasn't in a maintenance capacity, but I have a hard time believing that they didn't do what S&S told them to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Joz.  This appears to be a design defect however could you at least accept that maybe just a smidge of pressure on VTP'S put the ride into operation prematurely?

I have no doubt from personal experience that MW'S technical services have done their best from the get-go but as far as  finger pointing games go, do you think there should be partial consenting? 

- Side note but I have always been sceptical of the Park's decision to not have a properly enclosed Maintenance Bay for this ride. Leaving cars parked outside, day and in the unforgiving Qld elements certainly can't have helped 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's like saying if the Dreamworld Tower fell over it's the park's fault for 'demanding' Intamin build a 400 foot tower. 

As the customer you simply request a design, it's the suppliers obligation to fulfill the necessary engineering requirements and if they provide certified documentation of such then it falls with them. 

You can't lay ANY blame on the customer for requesting something from a conceptual point that the supplier ultimately failed to build correctly. That's just nuts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it there is no way the blame can be shared.

if there there was a manufacturing or design error in any part that led to the incident, the blame lays with the manufacturer.

if the manufacturing was sound, but MW through either inconsistent/poorly completed/unauthorised repairs & maintenance caused a fault or compromised what was a sound design, then blame lies with MW.

it can't be case of poor manufacturing AND poor maintenance, as the manufacturing came prior to the maintenance being required, and if there was an issue or even potential issue it should not have been certified 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Parkz Crew

    Support Parkz... join the Crew for:

    • Ad-banner free viewing
    • Parkz Crew profile badge
    • Extended editing
    • See who's liked your posts
    • Purchase discounts

    Join Now from $20/yr

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.