Leaderboard

It's all a moot point. They shouldn't have had to run to a button because appropriate automated controls should have been in place to stop the conveyor.

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. 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. 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.

No, If your payment failed to be receipted your pass would come up as 'Blocked'. Trust me. I worked with the passes when they were first introduced. I know all the errors they caused. 'Blocked' means a missed or delayed payment. OR that your pass had been confiscated as someone not pictured on it was trying to use it. 'Expired' means... well this is a ticketing error as the passes can't actually expire, so it's a system error. 'Upgraded' means that your pass has been reissued or printed.

Comments like your an idiot are not necessary and probably should be reviewed by moderators .

I don't get it. Did you 2 just have your first date, get married and get a divorce in one night? @JaggedJanine @pushbutton

So many mistakes hahaha Also.. Anyone else feel like signing MickeyD up for email spam?

Lots of talk, but it really comes down to a few things; Were proceedures in place that demonstrate when the ride cannot be operated / shut down and were the operators aware and practiced in their use. Were safety systems in place to limit risk to guests, and were those systems working/in place when the accident happened. Were operators sufficiently trained in the full operation of the ride, and were they confident in their abilities. Problems with the ride design, systems or operations in its previous and current state. Were any modifications made to the ride outside of its production and was supporting documentation of implementing any changes produced. With the ride previously experiencing faults, was anything missed or overlooked to allow the ride to continue operation. And if questions were raised on the day during previous faults, did anyone give the authority to reopen the ride rather than keep closed for repair or further investigation. They arent putting the operators on trial. The indepth questions directed at them are not just used to establish a timeline events, but to also establish what the work environment / culture was like at the park with regards to training and experience. The timeline of events and anything that previously happened during the day that should have seen the ride closed directs issue back to the supervisors and any managers that may have allowed the ride to continue to operate when it should have been closed. How people act, what they do and how confident they are directly reflects back on the operation of the park. Pointing the blame at one or even two operators is basically small fish, unless you can establish they were negligent (which is near impossible). What they are more interested in is training, safety, park operation and proceedures. Ultimately a combination of these are responsible for any incident that occurs, so they want to see the inner workings of the park and what is lacking at the top. The park would be committing suicide by trying to hang any blame on an operator. They are responsible for placing them in that work environment and also have a duty of care to the staff to make sure they are adequately trained and experienced to operate safely within that environment. So someone unsure of their role, responsibilities or actions only demonstrates the park let them down too.

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?

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...

Sorry, I don't date people who can't understand get my sarcasm.

If I know @MickeyD and I don't, Mickey already has enough mail order partners lined up.

Cool, thanks

Nothing shits me more than muppets who shout “bully” at people who just disagree with them or point out an error in their argument. All that does it then diminish, downplay & dilute the true seriousness of real bullying which is a massive issue.

If they fail to receipt the direct debit payment promptly or properly, then the pass could switch to expired in the system. The system we use at work takes 4 business for the payment to clear to us. We receipt every business day. If they did it once a week, it could be as high as 12 days between being taken (say Saturday) and receipting (say if they did it every Wednesday).

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

I do hope that’s not official copy given this week’s proceedings.

I think that is the entire forum

If you intend to continue playing the victim in everything you do, perhaps that is for the best.

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

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.

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 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

@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.

Well as long as you feel more inclined to buy a car after your visit here tonight, then I guess we’re all leaving happy.

Here's my commentary: -Training was grosely inadequate and symptomatic of the theme park industry only equipping operators with the bare min knowledge. -Even if it's claimed the ops were told by a trainer abc, if operator did not retain abc the training system is at fault, not the operator -Soemone is 100% at fault here. That person is whoever was responsible for the ultimate management of ride control systems at the park. This one was innadequate and they allowed that to remain the case. They are responsible for 4 deaths and 100% should be in goal. -This should result in an industry shakeup that prohibits reducing staffing levels and adding workloads through assistance like CCTV, etc etc. Rides need more operators. -A 'blackbox' is 100% possible. All rides should run on a modern PLC capable of fault logging. A failed pump is very easy to monitor whether by current draw CTs, motor RPM via a high speed encoder, or flow via a flow meter. None were in place.

How does that fit in with the trolls village smack right in front of it?

@AlexB @AlexB @AlexB breath. You're asking stupid questions that you already know the answer. A child dies there's going to be a coroner's report. Have I read the report? No. Have I seen the report? No. I was told by an officer after the investigation concluded. Statements like mine are in relation to this topic and not to joe blow walking down the street. You', my friend, are dissecting my thoughts on how a theme park First Aid should run and turning it into how Joe would/should react in the street. Just for you Alex. SKEET SAY "IF YOU SEE JOE OR HIS SON REQUIRING FIRST AID YOU SHOULD RENDER ASSISTANCE". We need to move on - If it turns out DW don't have enough people to respond to a medical emergency to offer First Aid in the correct time frame, don't give this responsibility to a ride operator. Next time you check what jobs are going at DW and you see nurses wanted, check out what experience is required. Heads up, it's not a one-day first aid course. If one nurse/first responder isn't enough to respond in an emergency than DW need to hire 2 and if 2 isn't enough DW needs to hire 3. Instead of the operator doing a one-day first aid the operator can spend they the day doing the emergency shut down procedures and you wouldn't even need the first responders.

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.

That's what's known as excessively pedantic.

You are very welcome.

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 😂

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

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 .