Leaderboard

A very non-GCB article by the GCB... Opinion: Parks like Movie World a massive asset for the Gold Coast JUNE 20, 2018 A COUPLE of weeks ago I was on a roller coaster that stopped unexpectedly at Movie World. I was in a carriage with my 11-year-old daughter, a friend, and his five-year-old son. We were up there for at least five minutes, probably more, before being evacuated. And it was about the least frightening thing that’s happened to me in my life. It was a side of our theme parks most don’t get to see — what happens when safety precautions kick in. In our case, we were enjoying a spin on the wildly entertaining Scooby Doo Spooky Coaster when our carriage eased to a halt. For those who haven’t had the pleasure, the Scooby Doo coaster is an indoor ride that hurls you fast around a twisting track in near absolute darkness as the rambunctious theme tune to the popular show plays in the background. It’s an absolute hoot, a Movie World favourite that always draws long lines. As we spun through the main section of the ride our carriage slowed. The music stopped playing. The lights went up. And an impressive scene unfolded. Our carriage had parked itself at a walkway leading to an emergency exit, not normally visible in the dark. We watched as carriages behind us arrived, and each slowed to a perfect halt beside their own individual walkway and exit. It was precision engineering the Germans would be Proud of After a couple of minutes, a member of staff appeared at each exit, ready to release riders one by one and lead them to the exit. The staff member who assisted us apologised as she introduced herself — for being nervous. She was shaking a little. It was, she confessed, her “first evac”. She need not have worried. If she was nervous, she was the only one. The engineering marvel that unfolded and professionalism of the clearly well-trained employees, first-timers or not, had everyone perfectly at ease. It was a world away from the truly shocking tale of missed warnings and faulty pumps being told 15km away in the Southport Coroners Court this week. Although unrelated, the publicity from the tragic accident that took four lives at Dreamworld in October 2016 had a negative impact on all our theme parks. There is a fear that a similar downturn may happen again after this week’s proceedings. But there is an enormous gulf between the practices that allegedly contributed to the accident in 2016 and what I recently witnessed. When rides stop, people sometimes start taking pictures on their phones and spreading alarmist messages online. Sometimes TV news even jumps on the bandwagon. To do so is wrong and misleading. Controlled stops like the one I encountered are an indication of safety mechanisms operating exactly as they should. Remember, as we have learnt this week, one of the factors that caused the Dreamworld tragedy was that it did not have an automatic stopping mechanism. Yet since 2016, every time such a minor event occurs at a Gold Coast park, it is sensationalised into a drama it is not. It is damaging and very wrong, not least because our theme parks do more for Gold Coast tourism than any other business and deserve our support. They are a huge sour We’ve heard a lot recently about the potential of a so-called “Global Tourism Hub” or “Integrated Resort Development” to deliver a major attraction to the city. To do so such a development would be backed by a casino and God knows how many poker machines. Yet we already have the finest tourist attractions in the country sitting just off the M1 at Oxenford, and all built without a single family-destroying poker machine being installed. The theme parks have also received precious little marketing backing, featuring little in recent Gold Coast Tourism campaigns despite their obvious need of support in the past two years. And yet, at Oxenford, the investment has continued apace. The inquest taking place in the Southport Coroners Court this week has torn the scab off a wound that is still very raw. The details aired so far have been highly distressing. It is hard to imagine how the pain of the victims’ families attending proceedings could be made more intense. But allegations of missed warnings and bad practices dating back years will surely have done just that. The resulting publicity means the Gold Coast’s hard-won reputation as the nation’s premier tourist destination may take another hit, leading to a fall in numbers at all our theme parks, as happened in 2016. 7’That is something we should work to avoid because the reality is that places like Movie World are among this city’s greatest assets and incredibly well run — as I recently so clearly witnessed.

I don't think a name change is necessary. Perhaps an addendum (as a gross example, if Six Flags were to purchase they'd tack the SF onto the name) but i don't think Dreamworld as a brand has been destroyed. Ardent certainly has been hit, but much of the negative reporting has identified Ardent as the operator of the park, who has not done \ not said \ not implemented etc etc. Dreamworld's identity isn't getting the thrashing that Ardent is, and for that I think if Ardent sells, and sells publicly, confidence in the new operator with a good track record will be restored. For this reason it has to be someone with experience. It cannot be some random consortium looking to add a jewel to their portfolio for a bargain.

I think that is a very hard line to take, and I would argue - inappropriate at best. The 57 second timeline, from what I have read, is the time from the pump failure, until the time the raft flipped. I've seen this style of ride in startup and shutdown, although i've never seen one operating on half it's pumps. I can imagine, given the time it takes the water level to drop in a total shutdown, that the shutdown of only one pump would make the water level drop a much less significant observation. Basically, with all the water rushing through the station area, guest communications, and mechanical noises, It is doubtful that one pump stopping would be all that noticeable immediately, both from a mechanical noise perspective, as well as a water level perspective AT THE TIME (ie: timeline 0:00) Also from what we have heard, the main operator panel has no visibility to the unload area, and had no responsibility for that area, which is why there was a separate unload operator. (In later years, Wonderland's snowy could be operated by a single operator using CCTV, with load and unload taking place on either side of the control booth). It is unfair to be making statements that 'either operator had 57 seconds' to prevent this. Or that they will have to 'live with that'. Yes, at some point before hand, the water level could have been noticed, the stalled raft at unload could have been noticed - in fact, in both cases, SHOULD Have been noticed - however this doesn't pin it on the operator. For all we've heard so far, Dreamworld's policies, dreamworld's training, and dreamworld's ignorance of previous recommendations brought this about, and in reality, nothing the operators could have done would have saved people by the time it became apparent. Even the stalled raft may not have appeared 'stuck' but only 'not moving yet' and it may well have been practice on the ride to allow the next raft to 'bump' it along - so even at THAT point, mere seconds before the flip, the unload operator may have not perceived anything wrong, because of the practice of the park's policies. TL:DR - with everything we have heard, it is not appropriate nor fair to pin the loss of these four lives on an operator, or to suggest that they had almost a full minute to perceive and react to save them. The park's culture appears to have taught them that everything was normal, and only when the raft lifted into the air would they have seen a problem worthy of e-stop, which by then would have been too late.

Also, we are talking about panicked operators here. We haven't yet ascertained at which point they even became panicked as far as I have read. Was the dropping of the water level (when it was even noticed) enough to create panic? Probably not, given it had already happened a few times that day. Was a raft approaching another raft near the conveyor even a cause for concern much less panic? From what I'm reading we haven't even established that yet - all the more so when you consider that the police tried this a number of times and couldn't recreate the problem. It's well and good to talk about E-stop buttons and how effective they are, but what if we eventually establish that none of the staff (even with a full training package) could foresee that one raft coming into contact with another was going to cause a roll-over until said roll-over began, by which time even a two-second e-stop would have been too late? By that stage it wouldn't matter if the first aid kit was missing band-aids or "incomplete" and it wouldn't have mattered if the staff weren't first aid ninjas.

Coastguard or VMR? It doesn't matter either way, just curious which set of guidelines you work under. YOU CAN'T KILL SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY DEAD. If a person requires CPR, this means that they are unconscious, and they are either not breathing, or not breathing effectively (uncontrollable gasping for example). If you do nothing, they will die. If you attempt something, you might save them. You might not. But you can't kill them twice... so it is better to try. In Australia, the authority on the appropriate CPR to administer, which is what dictates the course content to ASQA, and therefore what dictates what is taught within first aid and CPR courses by RTOs nationwide, is the Australian Resuscitation Council, and its pretty hard to bullshit bullshit bullshit your way out of a banner quote on the front page of their website. Skeet - you and I disagree on things from time to time. I have a lot of respect for your background, even though I don't know you, and only pick up on the 'vibe' of things you're involved in. I've gone toe to toe with you on many subjects and i've lost some of those and been proven wrong, at which point i'll gladly admit it - but you are never going to convince me on this point. You can't kill someone if you perform CPR on them incorrectly - because without your intervention they will certainly die. With CPR, even professional, qualified, textbook CPR, your chances of survival only increase from 0% to roughly 3-5%. If this father you talk of was told he 'killed his baby' by attempting CPR, whomever did so deserves to be drowned. Clearly that baby was unconscious and not breathing. Without defibrillation, that baby had, at best, a 5% chance of survival (defib would have been up to 70%). TO tell this father that in his efforts to help, he caused that childs death is disgusting. Even if he'd done it properly, there's no way of saying the child could have survived.

That's already taken, that's the world he lives in currently 😝

So ‘Clive Palmers’ Dreamworld’ doesn’t work for you? 😜

@Brad2912 if @razza1987 is buying a car, a car joke is in order. Two blondes were driving to Disneyland. The sign said, "Disneyland Left". So they started crying and went home.

Last time I tried to use that code somewhere I was pulled into a dark office and frisked by a overweight sweaty rent-a-guard named Stanley. I wont fall for that again...

Well looks like DW are trying to throw the ride op under the bus by insinuating it’s his fault he didn’t get to the second E-Stop in time. What everyone seems to be missing in this is, except for people here is where that button is located. Not at the unload area, but at the top of the lift. Which make DW look better that they had the system in place and incompetent ride op didn’t press. With 2 people trying to run a ride like that, getting to that button Is argue can’t happen, between loading and unloading and watching ride conditions. Walking over to press that button and have the conveyer shut down would take about as much as the 8sec button on the control panel. Even if they were running to it, which I would guess wouldn’t be easy with all that water the catwalk would be slippery. what should be being asked is why wasn’t such a button placed on both the main control panel and unload panel so either op could notice something and immediately shut it down. Rather than navigate all the way over to where it is placed now.

The sun newspaper article

It’s not for them to administer . The nurse or security would be called. Note most people have fire training.

Let's be honest here. Somebody who completes a basic First Aid course 4 year ago and never puts it into practice is going to be shit at it in an emergency.

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.

here's the latest from news.com.au: https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/news/dreamworld-staffer-didnt-know-first-aid-an-inquest-has-heard/news-story/d7157c7aad8cbfc4637cb7c5dbe0337e For fuck's sake. On the one hand, he's been referred to as 'one of dreamworld's top 10' operators, and really, I would expect the park would give some training to certain roles, but at the end of the day - its typical for a lifeguard at a waterpark to do first aid - mainly for the CPR aspect due to the drowning risk, but on theme park rides? I don't have an expectation that every ride op and loader is going to know first aid. the park has a first aid room \ staff member on duty who can respond wherever needed... but let's be real (and I apologise for the coarseness of this) - knowing first aid, or knowing how to rescue somebody trapped on a ride wouldn't have changed the outcome here. These operators have a lot of things to learn, remember, and do. I manage two different teams of first aiders - one in an office, and one in emergency response - and the number of responders that tunnel vision on a bleed and ignore the situation outside the wound is phenomenal. In a serious incident I want the operator making the ride safe, and calling the cavalry. I don't want them dashing off gallantly trying to save people before the scene has been made safe... it just has a habit of producing more casualties.

Given the info that’s come out in the last 48 hours I’m hesitant to complain that they are actually doing maintenance....

It’s not about that though.. its about the fact that “VTP Memberships” were marketed as the premium type of annual pass. They were above the standard offering. Now it seems people on this premium pass option are neglected as they are basically perennial members and don’t need to be “encouraged/bribed” to renew their pass. All of the perks outside of park access have been removed with no reduction in price, and now people on one passes receive extra perks. It’s inconsistent messages which annoy people

On the contrary: I've spaced your statements out for impact, but your allegation was categoric. The tragedy could have been avoided if they pressed the button they had almost a minute to press the button i'm not sure why they didn't press the button in this minute, unless they weren't doing their job properly they have to live with that. I've refuted your statement on the basis that your assumption of 'almost a minute' is way off base, and also on the basis you assume that there is no conceiveable reason why they wouldn't have pressed the e-stop unless they were distracted. I've called into question your timeline (it's wrong) as well as the reasons why they didn't (training, policy, not identifying an issue until the last moment - hardly 'distracted'). I'm sure some operators will read these forums. Maybe even those giving evidence. Your statement isn't supported by the evidence and is downright disgusting. I'm sure (given we've heard of self harm incidents) that these people are living with this every day - without anyone suggesting that they were derelict in their duties (simply distracted) and had almost a minute to save these people, when in reality the first real indication for them that something was wrong was probably when the raft lifted out of the water. Are you an operator with knowledge of the attraction? You've said this twice, and yet we've already heard evidence at the inquest that the unload operator had access to a conveyor belt stop button, which has been referred to as an emergency stop, or '2-second stop' button - which suggests that there was more than just green buttons to left the rafts flow by. If you're only drawing on publicly accessible images to make your assessments, then please shut up - clearly evidence before the inquest has already discredited you, and you're just making a fool of yourself.

I'd have expected that there had to be 2 emergency stop buttons, both of which completely and quickly stopped the whole ride. They should be placed well apart, and if there's 2 operators each should have fast, easy access to at least 1 of the buttons. Oh, and most definitely no operator should EVER be discouraged from using the emergency stop button, provided they honestly believe there is a reason to do so (having been trained on these reasons prior to being allowed to operate the ride).

Thanks for the summary @Roachie - these two points have me a little intrigued. I'm first wondering whether the 'confusing' label is that applied to it by investigators, or by qualified and experienced operators. Ie: were the people trained to operate it saying the panel was confusing? Or just a layperson? I'm sure many rides around the world would appear confusing to someone not trained on it... and I can't really imagine an experienced operator finding a panel confusing so i'm just trying to figure it out in my head. WRT the 'two' e-stops, my understanding is the main e-stop was an 'all stop' - so cut power to pumps etc, and for that reason, seven seconds sounds like the time it takes the water levels to drop within the station area. The 'second' (although apparently not marked in this way) was only a stop button for the conveyor - water continued to flow if this was pressed. If my understanding is correct, then the instructions 'not to use' and 'nobody uses that' kind of make sense. In an emergency, you would want an 'all stop' not just a 'stop the conveyor' so it does kind of make sense in most scenarios. At the end of the day its starting to sound much worse than we had thought out at Dreamworld, and I think the best outcome here for all is for the inquest to end with an outcome, for that outcome to absolutely crucify Ardent and it's operations, and for the park to be on-sold to an operator with an exemplary record to re-start everything from scratch.

Here's the article for anyone who can't get past the paywall

Big question is will it have fire sensing lights on it that reverse the cars in the case of such an event? Being a similar style of ride to Scoobs and all.