DaptoFunlandGuy

Well, I wasn't about to suggest a B&M. We really don't need that topic rehashed again.

Agreed, but i'm hearing a lot of people using the phrase "no other flume has done it" - and while this is likely true - there are two things we need to keep in mind: There always has to be a first for everything We constantly discuss how Australia has some of the highest standards in the world. We've talked about rides identical to overseas counterparts that have additional restraint systems (seatbelts usually) added to them, despite no park overseas requiring them - and never has anyone called that out as being an issue. Someone suggested our time is best spent debating the merits of the points this article raises - so here goes: Shake Rattle and Roll Sure, it's flimsy. it twists. It isn't meant to be load bearing. Just meant to smack you in the head if you try to stand up when you aren't in the station. Does it need to grip the frame to do the job it's been designed for? Probably not. Ok - it rattles. Ever stood in Scooby's disco room with the music off? (of course you have). If i'm given the choice of having this ride open with a rattle, or demolishing the very last bastian of this park's history, i'll take the rattle. Added weight? Are you fucking kidding me? I'd wager this contraption has got about 20kg maximum in it if it's aluminium - maybe 30kg if its all steel. Ok, the lever action claim has some merit, but have you inspected the sub frame to rule out that it hasn't been reinforced internally to withstand that? New places to hold on and get fingers caught People can hold onto the grab handles of the canopy. That sounds like such a massive issue... /sarcasm Now I haven't seen these frames up close for myself, so I don't have the benefit of seeing this first hand yet - but a concept that suggests pinch points and several centimetres of give doesn't seem to correlate to each other. From what I can see in the image, the moving parts consist of the 4 U brackets, and the locking mechanism itself. Assuming riders can't reach the locking mechanism, there really doesn't seem to be any inherent risk in a 'pinch point' when the roof can't move, and the U brackets have several centimetres of play... or perhaps I just need this particular issue explained a little better. While Parkz typically writes factually, and without emotion, the use of 'slamming' is quite emotive and to me comes off a bit alarmist. Have you ever tried to slam a door that has only centimetres of movement? It sure sounds like the moving roof and the fixed frame contacts each other throughout the course, or taps, or - to borrow from the article's image caption "bumps" its way around the course. This could certainly be a better design. they could have runners. They could use graphite lined rails. Rollers. There's many tweaks one could consider - but it all comes down to the risk factor. Someone could stick their car key into a powerpoint in the park. You don't see keylocks inserted into every publicly accessible powerpoint in the park though... why? because the likelihood of someone doing this is low. Clearly after 30 odd years, the risk of someone standing up on a flume was low too - but someone did it - and this changed the risk score. Perhaps stick your finger in the U bracket, break it or suffer some sort of laceration, sue them, and then they'll change. Tripping Hazard I think this is a bit of a reach. Standard human behaviour is to approach things facing forward. The exciting benefit of doing it facing forwards is that this is where your eyes are - which helps you see things better. It's unlikely in the extreme for it to cause you to trip on the way out, but if we really think that this trip hazard is a bigger problem than someone falling out of a boat and being macerated by conveyor belts and following boats - we can always apply some yellow vinyl, or perhaps a yellow pool noodle to go over the bar, as well as a audio voiceover in english and spanish warning people of the hazard. The Whiplash Bar This one doesn't make it i'm afraid. Whiplash is a relatively common injury that occurs to a person's neck following a sudden acceleration-deceleration force that causes unrestrained, rapid forward and backward movement of the head and neck. The injury is caused by the hyperextension of the lower cervical vertebrae, and the hyperflexion of the upper cervical vertebrae. This is caused by the sudden motion-and-stop of the vehicle travelled in, not the fact that there is some form of headrest behind you (if it were, Disneyland's Splash Mountain Logs, with their higher backed rear would almost certainly be churning out lawsuits on a daily basis - given the much-higher-incidence of whiplash in collision litigation). Indeed, this is why modern car manufacturer's designed "active headrests" to limit the movement of a person's head during a collision by moving forwards. Even the wiki on 'head restraint' states a plain old headrest - which were made mandatory (I assume in the USA) in the late 1960s - were to prevent or mitigate whiplash injury in a collision. Manual Handling As a person who has suffered a workplace injury due to a repetitive manual task, this one should probably be the first on anyone's list of risks to consider when implementing something like this. The risk \ consideration is valid, but that doesn't mean the canopy is a bad idea. Most attractions at Dreamworld (or any theme park really) have a level of manual handling, lifting, strain, repetitive movement or awkward position. Its the nature of the job. But we know from a previous litigation case at Dreamworld that there are procedures to deal with manual handling risks - like rotating staff through positions regularly. The lack of safeguards referred to in the article is a bit of an overreach. There are many rides where a loading attendant could be placed in peril by the senior operator, but there are procedures in place to deal with this - usually a thumbs up style procedure or similar. Should there be 'simple human error' (which is always a risk), the likely outcome is a very unceremonious tumble into the log, or over the otherside into the water. Sure - its a risk, but one that can be mitigated by having clearance procedures between loaders and panel operators that is clearly understood. Ending Damn straight alarmist and pedantic - but not without cause. Someone's heart is in the right place here, but there's a certain element lacking in this article which is normally there... its hard to put my finger on it... but I sense something is different to the usual Parkz way. I'm not stomping my foot insisting the park can do no wrong. And i'm not suggesting that they couldn't have done this better (I see now another article pointing out exactly how other parks have fixed the problem) - and yes, they've done probably the cheapest solution to get them out of trouble... but how would most of us have reacted if they told us the reason they weren't opening log ride yet was because they couldn't afford to buy new boats with taller headrests? Most of us would have insisted on a retrofit solution to the current boats to do it cheaper and deliver the ride back into service quicker - which is precisely what they've done. There's been a lot of talk about the park 'going it on their own' but we simply HAVE to assume at this stage that the park is checking every little thing they do with a professional organisation who specialise in the area. And who are we as enthusiasts (glorified general public as has been said previously) to suggest that the park has just chucked on something they whipped up in their workshop without it being rigorously tested (both physically and theoretically) against all possible risk? Sure, they could have bought new boats - but with their slim profit margin, its hardly an option right now. Perhaps in time, these canopies will be modified as issues arise (real ones, not imagined) to improve them, or alternatively, in time, they can afford to buy Disneyland's old boats so it is better for everyone... Just my 40c. Cue the onslaught. Happy to have opposing views so long as they're respectful. I don't claim to have the answers, I just take umbridge to an article that appears to. The problem exists - we saw it occur two years ago. The article even referenced it. Therefore the rest of your statement is pretty ridiculous. The thing about a risk assessment is that you can never completely eliminate the risk unless you completely stop that activity. You would well know that it's all about control measures to mitigate that risk. Previously, a person could stand up on the ride and fall out. There were signs telling people to remain seated. But what if the guest couldn't read? This roof physically prevents a person from standing up. It is obvious that you cannot stand in the boat whilst it is moving. If a person were to climb out - it would be clear intent, rather than ignorance. the Park would be able to show they did everything reasonable to prevent the injury occurring. Whilst the incident 2 years ago didn't find fault with the park, and reopened the ride two days later, since the incident is now foreseeable, if the park did nothing and the incident occurred again you could almost guarantee some degree of liability would fall on the park.

Something like Tatsu, appropriately themed would be great - good capacity, different (aus first) experience... Maybe they look to Mack for this one as well?

It is the Rocky Hollow Log Ride... Let's break it down: Is it Rocky? Well - not really. Theres a few rocks around though. Plus plenty of places have names that really don't relate to what you might find - for example - Robe isn't famous for Robes. Is it a Hollow? Well in this context, it means a valley - and it is in fact downhill from main street - and on the other side, it does go back up, so yes, I'm going to say it firmly meets the 'hollow' criteria. Is it a log ride? Well - mostly. You do ride in logs. It's just that those logs now have additional framework attached to them. All in all - i'd say it fits it's name very well. Log rides are usually themed around sawmills and such, since sawmills used to float logs down a river to get them to the mill, so with the added sawmill signage and machinery... it's quite a pleasantly fitting theme. (ETA: in the resdesign, since they're likely to keep both Buzzsaw and RHLR, they really need to try and tie both of these together. If Sea World can change the flume channel for Vikings - Dreamworld should be able to do so for RHLR to bring it closer to Buzz.) It's no Splash Mountain, nor does it try to be - but to say there is no theme is pretty shortsighted.

I am disappointed. After reading your TR, I clicked over to her site and caught up on your Polish trip - Now I want to hear more of that trip too!

Except... Ahh nevermind. Oh Captain, My Captain!

For those wondering - based on the measurements in the image posted above, Maloney's corner is really the only option. They really don't have the option to take it out over the big top, nor could they take it over the carousel. the square in the harbour is just a more accurately measured rectangle as i couldn't get the diagonal measures as precise.

...And technically it's... nevermind. Oh Captain My Captain!

Forgive me Glubbo if i sound a bit rude in saying this... but it seems like we do this every school holidays, and always seems that many in QLD forget that the other states don't necessarily follow QLD school dates - and during this season, they are likely to be heavy contributors to the crowds at the parks (if any). Public school return dates: SA and NT go back January 29th. NSW & VIC go back January 30th. WA goes back January 31st. ACT goes back February 5th. TAS goes back February 7th. The biggest contributor (in my opinion only) to the holiday park crowds would be NSW and VIC - who are both in their final week. In addition to all that, Private Schools do their own thing, and frequently take longer breaks as well (http://privateschoolsguide.com/school-holiday-dates). Which is only natural as everything wears in - completely to be expected (and probably why the trims were added even though we couldn't feel much of an effect from them in the past two months...)

Look - I was skeptical I would fit into the tweety cages with my son - and it was very cramped, but completely doable. these look a little bigger than the tweety cages, so it should be quite fine. I'm guessing the thread has been split off somehow but can't see the other thread - I like your suggestion for the airline. given Dreamworld and Qantas are both born and bred Queenslanders - I think a partnership there would be fantastic, and truly inspire the 'Australian' aspect. Qantas A380s all have a camera in the tail - wouldn't take much to record some of the footage while it goes across country - don't use it for all of it - but it could be incorporated for sure.

well to be fair - 45 is also middle aged. so is 55. You have to draw the line somewhere - what comes after middle age? twilight? retirement? (not in this country). You could say 45 was the middle, but since 18 or 21 was when you became an adult, that's a "+25" from when you hit that age group before you progress to the next one..? (and it was 18-21 years of being a "kid" - even if that's divided into subgroups of teen, toddler, etc) If we stick on 45 - that'd make a life expectancy of 90, which isn't that far from current statistics... so why not? I think although there are exceptions, it's typical that you're probably raising your own kids until you approach 50... depending on when you had them. Then they fly the coop and start meeting, dating, partying for about 10 years (that's their 20s) - then they start having kids as they approach and pass 30, which on averages would be as you approach 60, so you start looking at being a grandparent around that time - so i guess depending on where the line is drawn, 65 isn't a bad line to say - that's when you start moving into that area of your life...

Anyone confirm?

*and closing again a month later to accommodate fright nights...

^asshole. 35. And a 25 year old called me middle aged. Even google defines Middle Aged as 45-65. Speaking of definitions - and again without wanting to derail the topic - you are aware of the street definition of 'twink' right?

lol. It's definitely a largely unique way to do it! I proposed on Cyclone and we celebrated after our wedding on Viper... then went to Disneyland. You should get your partner to read more.

Be sure to update us when Megan gets hers up too! I don't want to play favourites, but I do enjoy reading her perspective just as much as yours!

I think you give way too much credit.

Unlike a person's height or physical disability (like plaster cast \ amputation \ prosthetic etc) it'd be an extremely dangerous area for the cast member to wade in on - people tend to get very defensive if someone suggests that they're "too fat". best to let them try if they've come this far, and try all you can to help them do it. i've seen them do the 'belly lift' procedure before, and almost always successfully. I've also seen the very forceful actions on restraints to just get them one more click. i think it's good that cast members try everything they can to get you on the ride within safety limits... but perhaps some caution is needed when someone wants to disembark a little prematurely!!!

Not new by any means - this has long been used to describe self-absorbed Disney ingrates. Urban Dictionary dates this one back to at least 2012: #DaOneAndOnly! I can assure you, I have not been abducted by aliens (they were doctors), but I certainly have been prodded and anally probed. Doctors still don't know what's wrong though. I wouldn't have thought i'd be having these issues, but as someone said to me the other day - apparently i'm considered 'middle aged' now ;), so I should probably expect to start falling apart at any minute!

Are you taking into account that: They'd first bid on and attempted to convert Aussie World into a second WnW park - a process that ran several years Where they eventually built was land already owned, adjacent to an existing 'attraction' there wasn't much in the way of neighbours to object to the project I think if you measured the timeframe from when the Aussie World project first commenced, you'd find the timeframes comparable.

Capitalised hashtags always open themselves up to multiple interpretations. My first take on the above was WEAR - E - GOLDCOAST, and took me longer than it should have to see the correct phrase.

I didn't get to see this during carnivale, however I did see videos. I think it suits the area very well, and it'd be a shame if Sea World couldn't somehow incorporate this into their regular lineup - clearly due to closing times, it isn't something they could run during summer without the extended trade that Carnivale provides, but perhaps they could introduce it as a winter attraction to try and keep guests longer in-park - perhaps combine it with a dinner at one of the park's food outlets to kill that short time between regular park close and 'dark enough for the show to run' time. I don't think that would detract from it's impact at Carnivale, provided the shows were themed to suit the event... just my 2c.

Rest assured, this isn't another digital rehash. The tagline on the video is the History site. It won't be new park news as that's handled by a completely separate group - who would make their own message. The History team of course would share it, but it wouldn't be posted by them. Museum wise I think that idea was way off base and far fetched - especially when every tom dick and harry thought their drink bottle, badge, sticker and coffee mug should go in there. I'm fairly certain we should see more info soon though...

^Agreed and can give a perfect example - Silver Bullet at Knott's is a B&M custom invert, but the seat sizing was quite tight for me the last time I went... whereas most everything else we did wasn't a problem.

Just catching up after some time away - but whats worse is the muttonhead passholes that would buy the fast track when it was cheap who were complaining that it was now unaffordable for them on every trip and only within reach of tourists who wouldn't give repeat business on the product... as if that was a valid complaint... I read that and just went... "good!"