webslave

In which case, actions of the park not withstanding, how did it keep getting inspected and re-certified?

Great write-up JDude. In terms of updates, any chance you could just post a link to your Google Doc and then a summary at the end of the day?

That makes more sense. I didn't like the implication that it was operating unregistered.

Is this sly reporting though? It's plausible that they sought an extension to the registration to allow them more time to have someone inspect it and said extension was granted.

We. Don't. Know. That. Yet. Do you think if someone had an accident at work and were hauled in to answer questions about it that their first response would ever be "yes, we have had heaps of training on it - I just decided not to do it"? To an extent this is the type of testimony anyone would be expecting to hear at this early stage. There's already been a number of items of testimony that either don't make sense or don't line up with one another (based on the reports). This alone should be sufficient for you to not yet be deciding who is negligent and who is not.

Set up to fail, perhaps - but in so many years of operation this is the first time we saw this event happen. The investigators were not even able to recreate it based upon the report of their testimony. It's easy to get tunnel vision on something like this and start thinking it was always a death-trap. It's rarely that cut and dry.

We might yet find out there is one. It's still early days in evidence, and you also don't know what's being said but not reported.

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.

The other thing to bear in mind here is that what's being presented here is evidence, rather than confirmed statements of fact.

When you're talking about people having to "live with it" (as just one example) you're making final conclusions.

Hang on a minute, you've had second hand information from the tabloid press over a day and a half of evidence-giving in a hearing - but we are already talking in absolutes about who did what, when they did it, what the buttons were set up as, and who is to blame? Fuck me sideways we are getting ahead of ourselves, aren't we?

You nailed it - I said the exact same thing about the shopping center show - no photo op there, complete waste of time.

I'm not particularly familiar with the term "positive energy stop". Is this a term used to describe a system that uses energy to stop a mechanical element (eg; if you had a flywheel it would apply friction braking)? The seven second delay on conveyor stop seems strange itself, much would the idea that they conveyor would coast (except, perhaps, backwards if it was loaded?). Probably barking up the wrong tree here.

Just on this - on our most recent trip I would have just about gone to Sea World because I also have a young lad with a weakness for the pups. With that said, my guess was two of the pups come out with Ryder (?), he talks for a bit, the pre-recorded mayor calls and says something about some event they are doing later and that it might be ruined, they call for volunteers from the audience to join the paw patrol, and then they do that god-awful pup-pup-boogie thing a few times. Sound like a good guess? If so, it's because we saw an identical show at what basically amounts to a dead shopping mall in Melbourne, and if that's the case to think that one of their key entertainment shows is that grade... well... yeah, forget it.

What I found interesting was that the article didn't really make anything of the fact the collection is at Dreamworld.

https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/peter-brock-car-collection-sold-off

Today on the radio I heard them referring to it as Australia's only "flight simulator". Where the fuck do they even find staff for their marketing department?

Haha, take it easy man. I'd be surprised if a cursory search found no such obsession in your posting history. That's without mentioning the 'W' word

"Extravagant" isn't really a word that comes to mind when I see that. Maybe "austere" might be a better fit.

You'd be a big fan of the Ekka, then?

S'alright ol' Skeet - I'm not accusing you of war crimes. You're a good egg.

A good point, but a debatable one. See, I'd have figured that if the park were willing to operate SDSC that they'd have managed to do it in such a way that it didn't dominate the experience (ie; I don't recall too well, but is the now-darker-than-usual dark-ride section over fairly quickly and the rest of it is good?) - but from reading the OP's call I'm now thinking that's not the case.

That really is some fine victim-blaming, but I'm not sure it's grounded in a lot of truth. Allow me to present you with an alternative narrative; the OP has travelled to the park with his partner. Being a park enthusiast it's likely the visit to the park was either for him, or initiated by him which gives him some skin in the game as to the quality of the overall experience by him and his partner. If you'd been telling your partner that you should really go to Movie World because you hear it's pretty good lately I think you'd be a little embarrassed in front of your partner too when you find the staff scarcely make eye-contact, rides are bereft of themeing, and the host of other legitimate issues identified. It's no different to talking up a restaurant to your mates (service, food), and then turning up and getting shit food and service. It's not your fault, but you feel a little embarrassed for having suggested it in the first place. Sure, you might not go to a theme park for the explicit purpose of being greeted by ticket or ride staff, but you should expect that when you have to interact with people representing the brand that they are welcoming, friendly, and knowledgeable as part and parcel of standard operating procedure. You may not expect that lightbulbs are checked nightly, but you similarly should not expect to have an indoor rollercoaster stripped of themeing. Bathrooms are not the reason you go to a theme park, nor is signage, nor is shade, nor is seating - but they are all integral to what you do go to a theme park for.

I reckon you're right on the money.

You're welcome, buddy: https://www.brooklyndepot.com.au/ (Also, the lobster mac and cheese is usually pretty good too)