Leaderboard

Depending on what it is, it could be built near MDMC. I know a few times the idea of building a Motorsport attraction near MDMC would be good, as it allows for a new area to be made. But in saying all of that, it could just be an upgrade to Redline (hopefully it's something a bit bigger than that).

Boom... get rekt... (sorry) In all seriousness though it does look like this relatively new management that has taken over (or its the same management just a change of heart maybe?) is actually starting to care about some of its older and beloved attractions in the park... except of course for... you know... the train... and the.... ahhhh... Paddle Steamer... But their decision to do a complete referb of the Wipeout I'm sure wasn't a decision completely based around finances... I'd like to think that Dreamworld actually listens to their customers and values their opinion (Instead of just saying they do) After all that would be the smartest decision. Whether this referb of Eureka Mountain actually happens soon? I'm not entirely convinced yet... Sometime in the future though? most definitely... they cant let it rot for another decade... can they? I just hope that these "2 BIG NEW ATTRACTIONS!" are actually something new not only to Dreamworld but also that we haven't seen in Australia... personally I would like to see 1 really good attraction like a proper simulator... that utilises the standard of theming they have at American parks... something like Star Tours at Disney or the Back to the Future Ride at Universal Studios ... but I'm sure the people here would just tell me I'm dreaming I'm longing for something that actually makes you feel like your having an adventure! I'm kinda past the age where I like getting my fill of G-forces from the most thrilling of rides.... I want something that puts you in the story... Like the rock in roller coaster, space mountain, Jurassic Park ride, and the others I mentioned above... I think you guys understand what I mean They have a Dreamworks affiliation now... start utilising the franchise to it's full ability.. there are a number of films that I would love to see a themed ride be made of... and not just see some short films in a cinema...

DJR, in many ways that's exactly what I've said here - the primary system is not meant to fail. That we have a secondary (and tertiary) system is fortunate as there was a time not too long ago where it was not mandatory. It's the type of thing that people are interested in hearing about, and that's why I'm saying it's newsworthy. If nothing else other operators (and the manufacturer) will be interested to find out what happened. In an ideal world it's a simple in-house issue, but this world is far from ideal. There's little point trying to play it down as normal operations though - we are both in agreement that it's not something that should happen. Does it make it any less safe for riders? No, and that's not something I've even hinted at.

Liberal (and futile) use of the text formatting options aside, how did you come to the staggering conclusion that I am somehow misinformed? Perhaps you'd like to cite a specific example where I said something that you feel is misinformed? I'd be happy to set you straight. Skipping over the spirited (yet misplaced) defence of the amusement industry in Australia, we get to the admission of exactly what I accused in the first instance - there is a concerted effort here by some to play-down a safety incident. Thankfully (and by design) the safety incident did not result in the injury of a patron and was allegedly identified by an existing maintenance process. Why play down an incident like that? It's complimentary to your touching homage to the safety standards our amusement operators conduct business within. It would be a shame to allow your obvious emotional investment cloud your judgement in what is a newsworthy incident. We are certainly lucky that the protocols here worked for the most part as they are intended to do, but the question is always (and should always) be asked; how close were we to a major incident, were there any contributing factors, and what can be done better in the future. You don't find answers to these questions by sycophantically jumping to the defence of the industry for a perceived criticism, and the safety culture that you rightly speak so highly of was certainly not forged by a culture of playing-down incidents. You know it makes sense, even if you can't admit that just yet.

I think you might need to consider that I have worked (or work?) in the industry and know quite well from first-hand experience how such a system operates, and the legal and maintenance requirements of such. Do you? I understand it may be convenient to try and accuse somebody you're in a discussion with of ignorance in an attempt to bolster your own point of view, but the pesky thing about that is it's usually best backed with evidence.

You'll note that my objection was actually to this sycophantic attitude creeping in that made people think an issue like this needs to be played down. Fact is it's a safety issue, and regardless of whether it allegedly happened while in-service or pre-service it constitutes a risk to anyone who had ridden the ride in the days leading up to its discovery. Is it newsworthy that it happened? No? What if it happened again next week? Still no? What about the week after that? You can see where I'm going with that. There's no need to try and play it down - nobody is reading this and being scared off. Restraints are important - issues that cause a failure in those are similarly important.

Uh, yeah, so about that... http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/safety-investigation-reports.aspx?mode=Aviation&q=engine https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=engine+failure&safe=off&tbm=nws (tl;dr - your claim that it's not newsworthy is thoroughly disproved) A reversion in safety level to the avenue of last resort (and one in which the vehicle would not continue to run) is indeed newsworthy. Again, only because the cost of failure is so high. People get a bit 'funny' about the thought of falling out of amusement rides. Sentimental about their bodies, I suppose. If a ride like Buzzsaw has a restraint failure such that a rider would be put at a heightened level of risk of serious injury or death would you want to know about that, regardless of whether you eventually chose to ride or not?

You might expect the park to say that rider safety was never an issue, however could you ever envisage them saying otherwise? Certainly not the practice of any PR agency I've dealt with. Part of the hub-bub around issues like these is the pressing need to determine the root-cause of failure. When you have a bunch of identical items and one fails you then have to assume that all are in imminent danger of failure until you can identify the root-cause. In this instance, whilst you say (cite?) that it was picked up during a normal test without anyone in the seat, is it really a likelihood that the issue just so happened to occur for the first time when the test was allegedly conducted? On the balance of probabilities the smart money is on 'no'.

I dare say that if both systems failed people wouldn't be reading about it on Parkz first - it would be mainstream news. When you lose an engine on a commercial flight there's an investigation as a matter of course. That investigation is almost always reported publicly. Hark back to a time where we didn't have a requirement for secondary restraint systems; we'd have a real disaster here. The secondary system is not intended to substitute for the primary system, and instead is an avenue of last resort. Now, that's not to say this is a bad news story - if anything it's a validation that the safety systems of today are superior to the protocols of yesteryear. I know there's a couple of lighting techs among us - they all know that they need to have fixtures with two points of contact (example a clamp and a safety wire). If one of your clamps failed during a show and you found the fixture hanging by its safety wire would that be a cause for significant concern? I know it would for me. After all, how often do you check that your safety wires are up to the task? We should be thankful that the event was not more serious, and thankful that the lessons learned over the years assisted in avoiding such an outcome.

C'mon fellas, make some touch with reality. Sure, there is a secondary system in place in the event of failure of the first - but is it really not newsworthy when that primary restraint fails? On a twin-engine aircraft when an engine fails do we yawn and say "it's doing what it's meant to"? Of course not, because the cost of failure is very high - as it is here. That a secondary system exists to prevent a major incident does not make the failure of the primary system any less newsworthy.

In today's news "The Theme Park Social Network" copy other sites news stories and believe everything that they have read without using the thin between the ears. (Without trying to derail this conversation. Has anyone noticed The Theme Park Social Network dude is at Movieworld/SeaWorld every day? I put this down to he does not have a job and can’t afford a pass to Dreamworld)

That's pretty much it. In case anyone is unsure about the status of the project, it's a fact that Dreamworld are working on the attraction. Whether it will result in its opening is another matter and where the wait and see game is.