Jamberoo Fan

That's how I've always seen those parks particularly as a rare visitor of the parks. What does ZE stand for by the way?

I never disputed that part of your post. That was new information I believe.

Yeah, that's what I thought - the more regularly a customer you are, the less the park is a 'full-day' park. I agree with that - add in lunch plus browsing through souvenir shops (if you are rare visitor), then it is nearly a full day park.

If you were referring to the Cheap piece of equipment could have prevented Dreamworld accident article, your summary didn't include 2 key paragraphs: It is so far down the article that's why I pointed it out as that article's headline can easily be read as to do with the official investigation findings when it is not - it is just an expert's speculation. The rest of the quotes that you added from the article are not related to the general premise of the article (the limit switch) and is simply old information to make the article look more detailed. If you're referring to Dreamworld tragedy prompts statewide theme park 'safety blitz' amid broader workplace audit article, this part of your summary...: ...had nothing to do with the general premise of the article (QLD Government theme park safety audit) & was already posted in the media statement you embedded only an hour earlier. It's fine to share news article headlines with a summary - I'm just requesting to ensure the summary reflects the article and doesn't contain information that's already posted. The forum topics are very long so it is understandable that it's hard to check to see if that information was already posted (It was within 24 hours of the incident occurring after all) so I just thought I would simply let you know and that I would give you the advice that the media includes old information in articles nowadays to make articles look more detailed than they really are/need to be.

Is that including shows @Santa07 & @bladex? I have only gone during off-peak periods on various days of the week & ended up staying the whole day. Whitewater World I finished halfway through the day before heading into DW to do more rides/attractions (some that I missed during a whole day DW visit too). Until DW confirm Whitewater World is part of DW (which was seeming to occur in the near future), I'd consider Whitewater World a separate park like DW originally planned it as even if everyone considers it part of DW.

Given the situation, I don't think the Dreamworld CEO meant 'looked after' as in just emotional support. He would definitely be referring to financial support otherwise that wouldn't be 'looking after' them in such a difficult time. Anyway, if you read the media statement that @razza1987 recently shared, it does state very clearly that all staff will be paid during the park's closure. Great photo @Theme Park Girl - I haven't seen any other photo that shows this much of the floral tributes etc.

Just for everyone's information, this is not an 'early indication' from the investigation. It is just an expert's speculation, which you can only find out by reading the article (It is mentioned half way into the long article). @razza1987, all the other quotes that featured in that same post of yours have already been posted in other posts that feature the original articles they were mentioned in. Be careful reading media articles as nowadays, they include heaps of old information to make the article look more detailed than it really is. Given the water pumps are at the station, I think it would be very noticeable if the water level was low as the water pumps wouldn't be operating as fast as they would (unless of course the water was being drained from somewhere it shouldn't be). The quote above is from this post. I looked back on archives of Dreamworld's website earlier this week & Thunder River Rapids had scheduled maintenance from the 25th of April to the 15th of May. This might have been what he was seeing. You already posted that in the media statement you embedded.

Yes, I believe a hypercoaster would be the best option due to the Commonwealth Games like you said. Remember, MW has been trying to expand their offering to all audiences with Doomsday Destroyer & the surrounding DC Comics Super Villians Unleashed area etc.. And also regarding the rollercoaster, VRTP's CEO said: They wouldn't point this out unless it is one of the most expensive projects they have ever decided to proceed with. The biggest investment in a Gold Coast theme park in Australia so far has been the Storm Coaster which cost $20 million so for this new MW rollercoaster, we're looking at a price tag similar or probably higher. My guess so far for this new rollercoaster is a price tag of $50 million. Also, MW is a half day park? I thought Whitewater World would have been a half day park?

I've looked through Ardent Leisure's company constitution as well as the Corporations Act 2001 and this, I believe, is what Ardent Leisure had the power to do: Ardent Leisure had the power to adjourn the meeting to another date but it had to be held before November 30 - 5 months after the end of their financial year (June 30) as the Corporations Act 2001 states. Also, according to the same Act, they could request to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission to extend the time period to hold the meeting. Like @Richard stated, proxy voting doesn't force the vote to go ahead until the chairperson calls the vote to be held at the meeting itself. The chairperson could rule on all matters related to the meeting's order of business, procedure & conduct. The rest of the meeting has to respect any of these decisions but on the matter of adjournment, the rest of the meeting, if a majority is in favour, may request an adjournment or decline a chairperson's proposal to adjourn. In the case of adjournment, the wishes of the majority of the rest of the meeting has to be respected by the chairperson by law. From this, I believe not only did the chairperson have the power to defer the vote but prior to the vote being called, a majority of the entire company at the meeting could have decided to adjourn to another date that was before November 30. The company could have requested to the Australian Securities & Investments Commission to extend the time period to hold the meeting too as a last resort. Also: The Brisbane Times is reporting: The ride the article is referring to is Hotwheels Sidewinder.

The news about the park not opening prior to funerals has already been posted. You're not the only one but please try to see if stuff has been posted already. It isn't as chaotic as Parkz was on Tuesday so looking back on posts won't take too long anymore. Please read this post I just made which does answer the question of park staff being paid. Also, Seven News reporting: If the harness referred to by 1 person as 'actually moving' was the Thunder River Rapids harness, it is a vecro strap - it is meant to move. It just must not come loose from the raft.

The ABC reported that the families weren't even contacted by the QLD Police nor could they communicate with the QLD Police themselves. QLD Police's response to the claim was: The Chief Executive Officer of Ardent Leisure (soon to be officially called Main Event Entertainment) has also said (referring to the poor communication with the families): Also from the ABC: Also, the ABC reported from the same article that the Dreamworld CEO said staff would continue to be paid while the park was closed.

Here's an additional part of the quote reported by The Australian: Ardent Leisure's (soon to be officially called Main Event Entertainment) share price dropped again today by 5% this time - not a significant drop in size - but it is nearly back out of the 2 year trend it was in again so it was a significant drop in some way. This drop is likely to be attributed to Ardent Leisure's poor crisis management. Some details about when a potential re-opening could happen from The Australian:

No, I haven't read it. I tried looking briefly for an answer but I ran out of time so I posted the link here for someone else who had the time.

It is in the undercover walkway between the Main Street fountain & The Claw. His exact quote from the transcript was: If anyone wants to check to be absolutely sure of the Chairman's powers to defer votes, here is Ardent Leisure's company constitution.

Yeah, I agree with your definition but not for 'typical theme park incidents' but for 'typical amusement ride incidents' instead. Using the words 'theme parks' made it sound like you talking more broadly than amusement rides hence the small disagreement earlier. You were focusing on ride systems while I was thinking you were referring to general theme park management, which is what the public/media probably would see it as - particularly with the scale of the media's sensationalism in today's world. If the fire wasn't caused by the ride system like the findings said, then it is not a 'typical amusement ride incident' like you said. It could be a 'typical theme park incident' though as it may have been due to staff ignoring park policies or not maintaining the non-ride system electrical systems to the standards of 1979. The findings did state there was a serious breach of duty of care by Luna Park in regards to fire safety which would be amountable to poor theme park management. In the end, when the Ghost Train's enquiry began, no one knew any possible cause of the fire. This is the stage of enquiry that DW is in - no one knows how 1 raft blocked the path of another or why the conveyor belt didn't stop operating. For we all we know, Thunder River Rapids may have had no faults in the ride system or it's operating procedures, which would mean the current incident at hand doesn't meet your definition either. The way everyone is reacting now is probably how they were reacting in June 1979. That's why, at this stage, I think it is fair to compare the Ghost Train fire with the Thunder River Rapids incident as all we know are the basics which are the same in both cases so far - it involves fatalities on a ride at a theme park with only basic details of how the incident occurred.

Green Lantern's wasn't a Coronial enquiry but it took 7 & half months for the Workplace Health & Safety investigation to be complete plus 1 & a half more months of redesign & testing of the rollercoaster before opening again. Thunder River Rapids is a different circumstance to both the Ghost Train & Green Lantern incidents hence I wrote 'at least 3 months' - it may be longer in duration (particularly when you add on any possible maintenance periods after the enquiry is complete - assuming the Coroner doesn't recommend closing the ride permanently) and there is a possibility an inquest will be held increasing the time the Coronial enquiry runs for.

Yeah, I knew that but given they didn't mention arson again I believe & they focused more on discarded cigarettes/rubbish, I think they were leaning towards an accidental fire as one of the possible causes and ruled a deliberate fire out without implying it (otherwise they would've mentioned any more information that increases the likelihood of arson as the cause straight after that sentence about the arson statement). Just to clarify, how do you define 'typical'? Either way, I don't think the safety standards of 1979 would mean the Ghost Train fire is different from a 'typical' theme park incident as it only just changes what can be considered 'typical' as the hazard levels are different.

@Tim Dasco, I put the Chairman's quote earlier in another topic from a transcript but from listening to the actual recording, he did ad-lib to say "and it, that area". And it's not 'many many months' - he said "until the conclusion of the Coronial enquiry", which if based on Luna Park Sydney's Ghost Train fire Coronial enquiry, won't finish for at least 3 months. Yes, it's months but not 'many many' - well not yet anyway. In any case, for Thunder River Rapids at least, it does depend on the Coronial enquiry's findings in the end. Also, remember that information would've been better in the re-opening topic especially given it's confirmed information and not speculation.

From the ABC:

From The Sydney Morning Herald:

Arson/electrical faults surely could be counted as a 'typical theme park incident' due to possibly poor park security/maintenance particularly for a dark ride in a show building like the Ghost Train? I read the Ghost Train fire findings the other day and arson (deliberate fire) was ruled out by the way. Accidental fire was considered a possible cause though and that would definitely not be classed as a 'typical theme park incident' as it was outside of the Park's control. I do note the findings said the fire started near a imitation fire, which if that was the cause of the fire (even if it was accidental), may see it classed as a 'typical theme park incident' as it involved part of the ride.

Not the worst globally. For starters, Luna Park Sydney's Ghost Train fire had 3 additional fatalities.

In case you're mistaken, this is not Tuesday's incident. This was last month & there were 7 people on the raft in the photos shown in the article I posted. Everytime I've been on the ride there was no rotating platform.

Some key quotes from today's Chairman & Chief Executive Officer addresses of the Annual General Meeting of Ardent Leisure: Remember, the key word in the quote above was 'plan' and this was said just after 10am this morning - 'plans' may have changed since then but the phase about Thunder River Rapids is definite. It does give a sign that, depending on the Coronial enquiry's findings, they may re-open the ride. Plans did change though as there are media reports from approximately 12pm today that Dreamworld's re-opening is now Monday at the earliest. Lastly, Ardent Leisure has changed it's name to Main Event Entertainment with 99.5% of shareholders/investors voting in favour of the change In good news, their share price went up by 8% today - the biggest gain on the ASX today. Village Roadshow's also went up by 0.2% so I think the immediate effects on the sharemarket are slowing down but may be affected again in the future depending on the outcome of the investigations and future visitation to the parks. Also, some good signs about Dreamworld's future reported by The Australian:

Not speculating but it does depend on whether official ride operational rules allowed it on that occasion. Since I've posted a lot of the sensationalised news articles in this thread, I would just like to point out that I do agree that this level of sensationalism is nothing new in the media generally - this is normal practice for them even back to the 1970's. I'm only pointing out that they've going too far this time for a theme park incident - even if it involved fatalities - as like I pointed out in one of my posts 2 days ago, the sensationalism for this type of news event was non-existent in articles from 1979 about the Ghost Train fire. I've avoided mentioning this so far for a few reasons but when I first rode Thunder River Rapids just over a decade ago, the way the incident has rumoured to have occurred was the only fear I had about the ride. I can't remember (yet) what made me think that it was a possibility (one reason why I haven't mentioned it in the past few days) but everytime I rode the ride since, I always prepared myself for such an incident. I didn't ask DW the possibility of it occurring as my faith in their safety standards was very high. The possibility of it occurring also seemed too obvious to me that I assumed manufacturers noticed the possibility too & put some sort of prevention mechanism to avoid it occurring (like a computer algorithm that stops the conveyor belt if the unload station is occupied for unusually too long). All theme park rides have these sorts of prevention mechanisms (like rollercoaster block brakes) so I believed Thunder River Rapids was the same particularly since I didn't know what mechanics could be located underwater - this is what probably heightened my fear as I couldn't see any underwater prevention mechanics for myself particularly with the water pumps operating right next to the unload station. There were also other reasons why I didn't ask DW. It is kind of haunting me that one of the only fears I have had about a theme park ride has actually occurred. Media Report Clarification: