Jamberoo Fan

Thunder River Rapids Incident Coronial Inquest

591 posts in this topic

You can't blame John. 

The ride opened with a continuous load system where this wasn't possible. 

Soneobe changed it to braked unload and load and failed to adequately alter the control system to compensate. 

 

After the 2001 incident further changes should have been made. They weren't. 

 

Ignorance is not a defense. Someone was responsible for ride control systems oversight at Dreamworld, they failed in their duty. 

 

With the processes in place this could never have occurred at a VRTP property 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pushbutton said:

I certainly wouldn't expect every ride operator to know first aid, and I doubt that's the case at any theme park. As Alex said, that's why all parks I know (including Dreamworld) have dedicated first aiders (and sometimes even nurses), as well as security officers who are also qualified first aiders.

All ride operators need to know is how to identify straight away there is a safety issue, and how to very quickly shut down the ride, and call the above mentioned people for assistance.

I’m surprised he doesn’t know first aid because one of the articles I read says that he now works at White Water World 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He ‘now’ works at WWW. He didn’t back then. And again, whilst I believe ride ops operating water based rides should be CPR trained, I don’t necessarily believe that means all staff at WWW are. Life guards clearly, but not sure if staff on the towers are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, djrappa said:

You can't blame John. 

The ride opened with a continuous load system where this wasn't possible. 

Soneobe changed it to braked unload and load and failed to adequately alter the control system to compensate. 

 

After the 2001 incident further changes should have been made. They weren't. 

 

Ignorance is not a defense. Someone was responsible for ride control systems oversight at Dreamworld, they failed in their duty. 

 

With the processes in place this could never have occurred at a VRTP property 

2001 incident occurred because a mooring line has not been detached, causeing another raft to flip onto another. That said something should of clicked in someone’s head that this could  happen some other way again in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

He ‘now’ works at WWW. He didn’t back then. And again, whilst I believe ride ops operating water based rides should be CPR trained, I don’t necessarily believe that means all staff at WWW are. Life guards clearly, but not sure if staff on the towers are. 

You need to have certificates for CPR to work in the towers too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, djrappa said:

The ride opened with a continuous load system where this wasn't possible. 

Soneobe changed it to braked unload and load and failed to adequately alter the control system to compensate. 

After the 2001 incident further changes should have been made. They weren't. 

Ignorance is not a defense. Someone was responsible for ride control systems oversight at Dreamworld, they failed in their duty. 

With the processes in place this could never have occurred at a VRTP property 

Could still happen with conitinuos load if load slow. Some removed planks from conveyor which may have also increased change of getting stuck.

why could this not happen at vrtp? Maybe not the exact same event but incidents happen . Let’s not forget what happened in green lantern . People were lucky to not loose their life’s. I’m sure an external engineering firm also signs of new rides when auditing despite it being an initial design fault as per TRR.

a better risk culture should have identified flipping as an issue after 2001 whether or not there was a raft moored after that incident. 

Lets not forget the probability of incident increased over time . Modifications to conveyor, unload station put in space closer to conveyor, rails put underneath to stabilise rafts after coming of conveyor all increased the chance . 

Edited by dbo121
  • Nauseating 1
  • Fountain of Improbability 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, razza1987 said:

Thanks for telling me to do something I already tried to do.

Bullshit Razza. You waltz in, quote something from a decade ago in entirety, and ask a three word question like 'what's most annoying' expecting others to do essentially what you could have googled yourself without choking up the thread.

7 hours ago, razza1987 said:

I’m surprised he doesn’t know first aid because one of the articles I read says that he now works at White Water World 

In addition, you tend to reply to shit as you read it - so if you're reading a 25 page thread, we'll get posts from you with a question from page 7, and then an hour later another question from page 12, and then the following day, a question from page 22.

Learn to use multiquote. Learn to reply to all in one post once you've finished reading the thread (because sometimes your question is already answered), try googling terms you don't understand before asking, and for gods sake learn how to edit quotes to remove text that isn't relevent to your reply.

 

25 minutes ago, dbo121 said:

why could this not happen at vrtp? Maybe not the exact same event but incidents happen . Let’s not forget what happened in green lantern . People were lucky to not loose their life’s. I’m sure an external engineering firm also signs of new rides when auditing despite it being an initial design fault as per TRR.

You're really starting to shit me. (I wager others are feeling the same)

The statement was this event, with these contributing factors couldn't happen at VRTP because of the culture and procedures they have in place.

If it's not the 'exact same event' then you can't really include it - are you going to suggest that a kid won't scrape his knee falling over on main street? no.

As for referencing green lantern, that was a design problem from the manufacturer. No park is going to be able to prevent that from happening where the manufacturer has provided engineering clearances without performing NDT regularly (and expensively) which most industries would deem to be overkill. The issue wasn't caused by a homemade attraction, it wasn't caused by a litany of in-park modifications. It wasn't caused by failure to follow recommendations made out after previous incidents.

Dude seriously - stop being so fucking argumentative. You're really acting like a tool, and you're not going to make friends here with that sort of attitude. Also, please try to improve your language and spelling, it just makes things easier to read.

  • Like 5
  • Nauseating 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow attitude much. Better not quote your response or you’ll mouth off again 🙄

I had adds pop up on my screen for cars while I was deleting the part of the post that I didn’t need and the phone then wouldn’t let me scroll back up. You can believe me or not but that is what happened. Calm the eff down 

Edited by razza1987
  • Fountain of Improbability 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read words more carefully. Not the exact same incident ...( obviously) Despite initial design fault ..I also highlight internal mods... to assume incidents can’t happen at vrtp because of existing policies and procedures in place is dangerous. There is always room for improvement. For example when and how external audits are completed will effect all theme parks going forwards. 

My points raised are relevant and rational . They are not arguments . It’s a forum of conversation .No need for bad language. Spelling .. my bad.

 

Edited by dbo121
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-read DJRappa's post. 

Taking away from what's been stated at the inquest the blame lays with the systems in place, for both the PLC, staffing and in-house modifications.

VRTP's don't run with such practices and therefore the causes of this accident don't pose a problem to them. Not to say that there couldn't be an accident, but not what we're talking about here.

Let's take WWF as an example, not completely comparable, but close enough. They run with a loader/unloader and control op who oversees the whole area and CCTV's. If this ride was at DW you'd more likely see just an unloader and loader who also has to look after the main panel. WWF also has an op at the turntable, now from people who worked the ride and have spoken about it on here MW didn't need to have one there, it was just a recommendation and they followed said recommendation. Being DW they would probably think a CCTV camera would be good enough. We've seen from the inquest DW were given recommendations and ignored them, MW followed them.     

Edited by Original

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dbo121 said:

Read words more carefully. Not the exact same incident ...( obviously) Despite initial design fault ..I also highlight internal mods... to assume incidents can’t happen at vrtp because of existing policies and procedures in place is dangerous. There is always room for improvement. For example when and how external audits are completed will effect all theme parks going forwards. 

My points raised are relevant and rational . They are not arguments . It’s a forum of conversation .No need for bad language. Spelling .. my bad.

 

You're an idiot.

If YOU read words more carefully, you'd have understood what DjRappa had said differently.

Rappa suggests had this ride been at a VRTP, the same incident COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED because VRTP's processes would have ensured the necessary safety, automation, modification etc were done...

With the limited information we have available, we already know that there are several points in the timeline where, had the necessary changes been made, this could have been prevented. What DjRappa is saying (and I daresay, he would know) is that the processes VRTP have ensure those steps would have been taken \ implemented, thereby ensuring this incident would not have occurred, had it been a VRTP ride.

Your points are contrary to many others. By very nature, that makes them an alternative viewpoint, which means there are unsettled facts. By nature, this means they are arguments (as in points of reasoning or logic, not as in quarrel or fight)

1 hour ago, razza1987 said:

Wow attitude much. Better not quote your response or you’ll mouth off again

Oh yeah, because i'm the only one with attitude. How do you think this comes across in response to someone who made a friendly and helpful suggestion for something it was possible (based on your history on these forums) you might not have known:

11 hours ago, razza1987 said:

Thanks for telling me to do something I already tried to do.

So when you're going to react like that to someone who just tried to help you, by oath you're going to get a serve in return. Sure, you've got some stupid excuse this time - but what of all your other posts - do the car ads appear everytime? Because this isn't the first time you've done it.

As for the stupid questions department:

Quote
  • What do they mean by “clinicians”?
  • Movieworld has some events for the commonwealth games?
  • What are fosters?
  • BRO entrance?
  • What is Gingys? DCR? The new coaster? What are the acronyms for? What are you on about? TCK?
  • DWF?
  • PTC?
  • What's the second ride other than Vikings?
  • Problems with S&S?
  • Which ride is plunge?
  • Storm?
  • Is that article suggesting Longhurst lives in the Hollywood house?
  • What's the Hollywood house?
  • What's a just under?
  • What is creature Cruze? What do you mean by brushes?
  • What's HWSW?
  • What does ROI stand for

That's everything since the TRRR incident. Out of 22 (counting the multiple questions in a line), there's at least 14 there that practically anybody who reads these forums could answer without any context, and the rest could be answered by reading the thread preceding your question, or alternatively, not something people could answer without simply speculating.

And even if its an acronym or similar that you've never come across, either reading in context (ie - is it about a ride or show of a name that fits the acronym?) or alternatively, using the site search engine to search on that term to reveal other posts where it is used, which can also give context.

If you tried to help yourself, you'd probably frustrate less people... and by virtue, need to ask less questions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, AlexB said:

You're an idiot.

If YOU read words more carefully, you'd have understood what DjRappa had said differently.

Rappa suggests had this ride been at a VRTP, the same incident COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED because VRTP's processes would have ensured the necessary safety, automation, modification etc were done...

With the limited information we have available, we already know that there are several points in the timeline where, had the necessary changes been made, this could have been prevented. What DjRappa is saying (and I daresay, he would know) is that the processes VRTP have ensure those steps would have been taken \ implemented, thereby ensuring this incident would not have occurred, had it been a VRTP ride.

Your points are contrary to many others. By very nature, that makes them an alternative viewpoint, which means there are unsettled facts. By nature, this means they are arguments (as in points of reasoning or logic, not as in quarrel or fight)

Oh yeah, because i'm the only one with attitude. How do you think this comes across in response to someone who made a friendly and helpful suggestion for something it was possible (based on your history on these forums) you might not have known:

So when you're going to react like that to someone who just tried to help you, by oath you're going to get a serve in return. Sure, you've got some stupid excuse this time - but what of all your other posts - do the car ads appear everytime? Because this isn't the first time you've done it.

As for the stupid questions department:

That's everything since the TRRR incident. Out of 22 (counting the multiple questions in a line), there's at least 14 there that practically anybody who reads these forums could answer without any context, and the rest could be answered by reading the thread preceding your question, or alternatively, not something people could answer without simply speculating.

And even if its an acronym or similar that you've never come across, either reading in context (ie - is it about a ride or show of a name that fits the acronym?) or alternatively, using the site search engine to search on that term to reveal other posts where it is used, which can also give context.

If you tried to help yourself, you'd probably frustrate less people... and by virtue, need to ask less questions.

YOU are the main reason why I stopped coming to this forum. You are RUDE, SELF ENTITLED, ARROGANT and act like you own the place. I thought I would come back to stay up to date on the Dreamworld inquest but if this is the kind of bs I will have to put up with forget it. I’ll go back to not posting

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“At an inquest at the Southport Coroners Court yesterday, Ms Williams described the build-up to the tragedy.

Believing the ride had malfunctioned when she was unable to open a gate to release a raft into the unloading area, she'd attempted to get the attention of main ride operator Peter Nemeth.

When Mr Nemeth did look her way, she said his face "completely dropped" when he saw the raft containing the six people about to collide with a raft that had become stranded on the conveyor belt due to dramatically lowered water levels following a pump failure”.

 

Does the gate not opening mean Mr Nemeth had already started the emergency stop prior to Ms Williams realising what was going on?

Would this back up Mr Nemeth statement that he tried to stop the ride before the collision?

Could it be the ride not stopping instantly sent Mr Nemeth into the panic?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AlexB said:

^This is abso-flogging-lutely bang on.

Couldn't have said it better.

So how do you come to the determination that he was responsible for the death of his child, because he performed CPR inappropriately? Was there a coroner's report that stated this? Is there any shred of evidence you can point to online that verifies this?

Yes, you said you can kill if done incorrectly - and my counter point is that you can't kill someone who is already dead.

It is statements like yours, that scare people into some misconception that they might hurt the casualty if they do something wrong, and humans being humans, the natural response to that is 'not to to anything'. Which is how people die. Idle hands standing by watching someone who needs help, but not doing anything to help them - THAT is how people die. So stop perpetuating a statement that serves only to scare more people away from rendering help to someone in need.

If i'm unconscious and not breathing, I don't GAF if you break my ribs, puncture my lungs and perforate my stomach (all possible injuries sustained from vigorous CPR), the fact will be that I am alive, and regardless of whether i'm hospitalised, suffer through surgeries, have to carry a piss-bag with me everywhere I go for the rest of my life, these are all more desirable than the alternative of death...

You're missing the point. For a trained responder located near the front entrance to get to say... vintage cars, how long do you think it would take them? So let's assume someone is knocked down and run over by the car, or perhaps the engine explodes and knocks someone out... You've got 10 minutes until they're clinically brain dead, but damage occurs from 3 minutes. For every minute, survivability reduces by 10%. If there is nobody else there who is trained, should we all stand around and wait for the nurse to run through the park (which, due to Thunder river's closure, means a stupid roundabout way up stairs and down ramps)???

Not to mention first responders don't generally run in these situations either... so how long would it take you to reach vintage cars from the main gate at a brisk walk, assuming that you are not impeded by train or guest?

Provided it is safe to do so (Danger being the first step in DRSABCD) if the person is not responsive, and not breathing, doing ANYTHING to help is better than nothing...

LMAO goes off at people for quoting posts yet does the exact same thing. At least I wrote a paragraph or two after what I quoted. You wrote TWO SENTENCES 😂

  • Nauseating 1
  • Fountain of Improbability 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We’ll clean this thread up in due course. Let’s keep this on topic and civil. 

Given the amount of design modifications that have occurred since its opening, it’s most definitely not fair to lay blame on the original engineers who built it. 

Modern OSHA safety, especially in this country, especially when it comes to amusement rides, is about being proactive, not purely just reactive. The question folks should be asking themselves is - was Ardent proactive in ensuring best practices and minisming foreseeable incidents and putting safety above all else, and if not, why?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Roachie said:

was Ardent proactive in ensuring best practices and minisming foreseeable incidents and putting safety above all else, and if not, why?

The only thing Ardent was proactive in was squeezing the life out of DW and lining their pockets. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t forget workplace qld and those external auditors . Were they as proactive as they should have been? They both had the power to force a shutdown , not just suggest improvements.

Edited by dbo121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skeeta said:

Should theme parks carry out emergency drills?  Does VRTP carry out emergency drills?

fdfdfdfdfdfdfdfdfd.JPG.1587d18679065a7807e83e86a64d6f87.JPG

 

I feel like MW ride ops have said here before they’ve had to train for E-Stop Evacs? But they’d need to confirm that. 

I also remember when AA had its stop when the chain broke, MW stated the Fire department trained with MW for that kind of evacuation. 

Edited by Original

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.