webslave

You'll find when you look at that in context I pointed out the difference was that the engine was not owned by the operator. In this case the ride is owned by the operator. You may also find that a failure may not be covered by the manufacturer regardless of whether it's a maintenance issue.

I wouldn't be so sure. Even in the case of QF32 the grounding was not an immediate thing, at least not outside Qantas. Instead they quickly got to a hypothesis and asked operators to carry out specific checks which indicated there was a wider problem.

Sorry, it was the Scenic Railway rather than the Big Dipper at LPM. There's a mention of it here: http://melbourneforeveryone.com.au/city/st-kilda/theme-parks/luna-park/Airmaxx 360 - http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaide-show-visitors-tell-of-problems-with-airmaxx-360-ride-from-which-girl-8-was-fatally-flung-from/story-fni6uo1m-1227057829956 Probably plenty more on Google.

Yes, there's the Ghost Train disaster at LPS. Big Dipper derailment at LPM injuring ~20. Consider also the various incidents at the state fairs/shows. There's the Arthurs Seat chairlift in Melbourne: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthurs_Seat,_Victoria#Chairlift. Plenty if you look.

Far from the most serious in Australia.

The engine was owned by Rolls Royce and leased by Qantas. Furthermore it was a manufacturing defect, rather than a maintenance one.

Computers aren't very good at that because unlike us they can't see or hear, or at least don't generally make decisions on such stimuli. Instead they rely on sensors, and those sensors need to be connected to the control system. I wouldn't think it to be likely for the vehicle bogies to have sensors that are in wireless (or third-rail) comms with the control system.

The brakes on these ride vehicles require a co-acting mechanism be fitted to the track for braking to take place. Ergo, the only ways a vehicle will stop once moving is due to mechanical failure causing excessive friction, a brake section, or contact with an obstruction.

Er, no.

If it took off the front bogie it may have caused the rear to run into it doing more damage. Ditto if, say, the first bogie jammed.

It appears that the lateral bogies are missing off both the front and rear cars judging from the photo of the underside, with the front one (if it is still attached) not where I would expect it to be, and the rear is missing all three bogies. I wonder if it may have hit an obstruction? Note the expected position of the front bogie: http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m44uwtySIo1rre72ko1_500.jpg

Unsubstantiated speculation? The incident happened, and it was agreed by those within the industry that it's something that shouldn't (failure of the primary restraint). We don't call a car crash no big deal simply because an air bag is fitted. You may want to check what was said in that thread - at least one poster admitted to playing it down. How about this one?

Not a bad idea. I'm sure we will have a few foamers along shortly to tell us how it's all a big misunderstanding and that's what it's meant to do and that it happened during pre-opening checks. The revisionist approach to history, isn't it?

OP says "stranded" and "malfunctioned". Of course, last time we talked about an issue like this we had to play it down...

How's all that playing it down working out for you? https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10569057_10155270321910697_5422457400947176324_n.jpg?oh=54590a77b6a3bca83b82f507094c207f&oe=55B2A08C&__gda__=1433477274_d7139383bf36f54d109a9c2d677ab83b

Got it in one.

I'm surprised I didn't find an existing thread for this, although I can't rule out that one exists somewhere. I was reminded of this by a recent (moreso than the link below) article in the paper. This is probably one of the strangest things I've come across: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/west/sydneys-wonderland-to-be-a-superpark-on-par-with-gold-coasts-theme-park-strip/story-fngr8i5s-1226840944464 http://www.sydneyswonderland.com.au/ Shirley this will never get off the ground?

You're quite right in that some restraint systems are designed to fail safely, and this in some regions negates the requirement for a secondary restraint. With that said though, there are now a number of operators that are installing secondary restraints during overhauls for rides that previously had none. This is not in response to the inherent risk of the ride increasing over time (although that can certainly happen), but instead is a direct response to the lessons learned in previous incidents around the world (see also: no culture of 'playing down' incidents). You'll note Dreamworld also applies these principles to themeing when suspended over the heads of patrons.

See, that's another one that has never curried favour with me. Getting involved in a discussion, making a bunch of wild assertions, and when asked to provide hard evidence to back them up backing away from the discussion with some pithy meta statement to now try and seem 'above' the situation you created. For the record; - Arguing on the internet isn't the verbal equivalent of anything unless you're using VoIP. - Knife fighting with bananas is not a thing. Why would you call it knife fighting if there were no knives, and why bananas anyway? Is that some metaphor for bringing the wrong equipment to a fight? - Nobody wins? Why should anybody win in a discussion? Could your belief that someone should win be framing the way you're arguing? - You only look stupid if what you are writing is stupid. I don't think anyone is quite there yet.

You know, you genuinely had me wondering for a moment if my memory was shot and I had in fact given the impression that I was not aware that there was a secondary locking system designed to prevent a major incident such as a lap bar opening and a person becoming unrestrained. But then, of course, I found my very first post: Perhaps you could explain why this was not clear to you? Could I be clearer in future? See, now this is where you have lost me, because although I can see a clear reference by me to the secondary safety system I can't see me saying that there is a risk to riders. Certainly if the ride operated in a state where the primary restraint mechanism failed (which you claim is not the case) that would put a rider at risk, but that stands to reason - it's just common sense. Is it a safety issue? Of course; when anything related to safety fails when it's not supposed to it's a safety issue. There's just no latitude for argument on that. As you progressively peel back the layers of protection the level of risk increases. Ask anybody in the business of safety - they'd be happy to tell you the same thing. H-how is..? How is t-the? How is the local paper printing a story on this newsworthy? I'm sorry, I was distracted for a moment because I was fairly sure you just answered your own question. If it's something the public would be interested in - it's newsworthy.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/newsworthy newsworthy [nooz-wur-th ee, nyooz-] adjective 1. of sufficient interest to the public or a special audience to warrant press attention or coverage. Choo-choo - here comes the logic train! Is the story: 1: Of interest to the public? Yes. Evidence: Check the comments made by guests alone... 2: Of sufficient interest to a special audience? Yes. Evidence: Parkz. There's no doubting the 'specialness' of some of the audience among us. 3: Generating press attention or coverage? Yes. Evidence: Article you mentioned. Nor do most of the aircraft owners around the world read our press. I guarantee the lessons learned here will also be learned by other amusement operators. What knowledge do you base this upon? I'm not saying they haven't but I'd be curious. Is that not the safety observation I've made a number of times now? Actually, I was being facetious in reference to the breathless speculation concerning the former mine ride. I apologise if I did not make this clearer.

DJR, in many ways that's exactly what I've said here - the primary system is not meant to fail. That we have a secondary (and tertiary) system is fortunate as there was a time not too long ago where it was not mandatory. It's the type of thing that people are interested in hearing about, and that's why I'm saying it's newsworthy. If nothing else other operators (and the manufacturer) will be interested to find out what happened. In an ideal world it's a simple in-house issue, but this world is far from ideal. There's little point trying to play it down as normal operations though - we are both in agreement that it's not something that should happen. Does it make it any less safe for riders? No, and that's not something I've even hinted at.

Liberal (and futile) use of the text formatting options aside, how did you come to the staggering conclusion that I am somehow misinformed? Perhaps you'd like to cite a specific example where I said something that you feel is misinformed? I'd be happy to set you straight. Skipping over the spirited (yet misplaced) defence of the amusement industry in Australia, we get to the admission of exactly what I accused in the first instance - there is a concerted effort here by some to play-down a safety incident. Thankfully (and by design) the safety incident did not result in the injury of a patron and was allegedly identified by an existing maintenance process. Why play down an incident like that? It's complimentary to your touching homage to the safety standards our amusement operators conduct business within. It would be a shame to allow your obvious emotional investment cloud your judgement in what is a newsworthy incident. We are certainly lucky that the protocols here worked for the most part as they are intended to do, but the question is always (and should always) be asked; how close were we to a major incident, were there any contributing factors, and what can be done better in the future. You don't find answers to these questions by sycophantically jumping to the defence of the industry for a perceived criticism, and the safety culture that you rightly speak so highly of was certainly not forged by a culture of playing-down incidents. You know it makes sense, even if you can't admit that just yet.

I think you might need to consider that I have worked (or work?) in the industry and know quite well from first-hand experience how such a system operates, and the legal and maintenance requirements of such. Do you? I understand it may be convenient to try and accuse somebody you're in a discussion with of ignorance in an attempt to bolster your own point of view, but the pesky thing about that is it's usually best backed with evidence.

*yawn*, sure, it's not newsworthy. I've pointed to equivalency in other industries and the newsworthiness of such, I've pointed out similar instances making the news, and perhaps the most immediate sign of newsworthiness is that it was cause for a number of posts here. So, sure, characterise it as a maintenance issue (do you think the two are mutually-exclusive?), but the fact is it's information that would be of interest to a vast majority of riders, and ergo, is newsworthy for that reason. QED.

You'll note that my objection was actually to this sycophantic attitude creeping in that made people think an issue like this needs to be played down. Fact is it's a safety issue, and regardless of whether it allegedly happened while in-service or pre-service it constitutes a risk to anyone who had ridden the ride in the days leading up to its discovery. Is it newsworthy that it happened? No? What if it happened again next week? Still no? What about the week after that? You can see where I'm going with that. There's no need to try and play it down - nobody is reading this and being scared off. Restraints are important - issues that cause a failure in those are similarly important.