Levithian

You can probably bypass the restraint/safety/block checks and launch the train with a key turn. Probably meant for when the train stops out of position in the station, but is still in contact with the collector rail so everything still has power. So you can bypass the usual checks and dispatch it to return it to the correct position, rather than having to drag it.

Because he is not the GM of seaworld, he has replaced bob white as the COO of village theme parks.

Looking at the site plan, the important parts are missing from the photo, because I can't see where it says they are demolishing the entire facade. The colour of the photo is washed out and is missing the key, but the focus seems to be the wording in the notes on the right hand side that says to only demolish areas marked in red colour? The blocked out section that makes up the majority of the cinema facade is running along outside, its just an exclusion zone to dump, package and store possible asbestos contaminated material before its removed from site, it doesn't say it's being demolished. See the difference between it and the boost juice exclusions? The boost juice one is a complete, no access, demolition zone that appears to fall within or has access to from within the cinema building. The facade is still there on the plans. The original entry is down for demolition, 2.7m wide to a height of 4m which sounds simply like improving access. Nothing actually says to remove the facade of the building, only that the highlighted columns are being removed. These, along with piers for the banked seating are marked red. There's nothing about the awning above once the columns have been removed. It could possibly be free standing and/or have replacement columns instore, so removing them doesn't mean its going either, which would normally be on the site plan too. Pretty much the only facade I can see that is specifically being torn down is the one between the box office and the coffee shop. The plans call for 5m length of existing facade at 6m height. It's going to become the site access in and out of the entire construction area for the build, but buildings each side look untouched. It reads like the entry/foyer at street level is remaining, while the cinema building itself is gutted from within to remove the banked seating and the piers supporting it as the building basically just appears to be a big free standing shed with no internal support columns. Im guessing from it's shape, and the external steel supports that are noted, its either block or tilt panel concrete construction, so you could rip pretty much everything out of it without having to touch the roof/ceiling. Be interesting to see the rest of the plan for the site profile, a 5m site access would be big enough to take vehicles through without needing site access from the rear. You could be taking the majority out into big skip bins to be removed from site when the park is closed, so you wouldn't need trucks to come and go during the day. It could explain the exclusion zone outside.

You reach a point with old buildings that just stripping out plasterboard or paneled interior is enough to disturb asbestos containing dust within the wall and roof cavities and turn the place into a hazardous work zone without even touching the sheeting itself.

Or introduce licences so they can make people personally liable if they dont do their job properly. This could honestly end up a disaster full of red tape.

Anyone who thinks everything will be stripped bare and repainted has rocks in their head too. Only critical or highly stressed components are tested like that. Doesnt matter if its welded, cast, pressed or folded, if its not under significant load or its not a critical component, theres no point to give it more than a casual glance. You'd bankrupt the industry if you change that. It would be akin to having your house restumped or your roof trusses replaced as preventative maintenance. The owners wouldnt be able to afford ownership.

"Major inspections every 10 years..." just shows how out of touch the government actually is with reality when they mention "big theme parks" in the same paragraph. How about instead of trying to talk tough, how about they come out with findings of their inspections and maybe throw some support behind anything that might be seen as a high standard already existing? You know, inject some confidence into those that contribute a big part of their multi billion dollar tourist industry in qld.

Coomera is literally one of the fastest growing areas in queensland. The whole foxwell road is exploding and coomera is merging into pimpama and into jacobs well, etc, etc. The new westfield is not the single reason for the intercharge built over the highway to supply foxwell road, the housing estates are too. Both sides of the highway, back down reserve road into upper coomera and down into stapylton and ormeau. Both sides of the road are going gang busters for housing. If the park was turned into housing tomorrow, it wont take years to sell, itll be snapped up inside the first year. 200 acres is NOT that big an area to physically develop. For me, if it went that way, with westfield being so close and highway access being excellent, I could see some high density going in with a bit of a precinct, possibly lake/canal style waterfront with prestige blocks. Kinda a bit like what happened in carrara.

I thought the blocks closer to the roundabout were sold previously? What they continued to own ran through the big brother house treking back towards the station and town center? Ignore the land value. That is unimproved and has no real regard for market influences, ie a massive shopping center being built and the whole area quickly turning into a huge housing estate all the way to pimpama. Itll be sought after as there are three big developers already in the area. The unused land was quoted as 25ha when they were floating the idea of redevelopment. That leaves 35ha remaining which consists of the parks for 60ha total? Take note though, regardless of how much land you have, you cant turn it all into housing. Roads, verges, infrastructure/services and parks simply stop that from happening. 1/3's used to be generous, but people are content to buy 300-400 sq m blocks now, so its more like 50% now. Big houses, tiny blocks and living in your neighbours pocket starting at under $400,000. Living the dream.

Yeah, but that was in reference to developing the land with a new retail/hotel precinct, not for housing. Besides which, 25 hectares is only about 60 acres, at best you're only going to be able to build on maybe half of that once developed, any developer would want the whole thing, not just part of it. It's the difference between 300 lots or maybe 1000.

Thats NOW. not before. Before its an ongoing viable business that far exceeded the value of the land. You only have to drive 100m into foxwell rd to debunk the flooding bs. For starters, dreamworld is surrounded by development now. Coomera waters is built around a tidal esturary and stocklands dropped coomera rivers right on top of a creek that drains into the wetlands at pimpama. With the town center going in literally across the road from the land dreamworld borders, the place would have a display home built and offering walks throughs before they even finished dismantling the rides if they opened it up to housing. They'd even name some of the streets after places in the park, you know, just for nostalgia's sake.

Is that another 75 million to go with the 90 million that was gone within 6 months of the accident? I'd like to revise my post I made back then that said it would be a long way to fall before the land is worth more than the park. Just roughly, theres over 120 million dollars in real estate potential given a plot of land that size. It must be teetering close to the line where it's starting to look like a prospect to carve it up and whack a housing estate on it. Wonder how many developers are going to start circling.

You mean like how the commercial for dc rivals was on TV before the track was even completed?

This is what happens when bean counters have more than their usual say (or people listen). They care nothing for what damage they are doing (both physically to the buildings and to the reputation), only how good the numbers look for this year. Look what they did to dreamworld, looks like its time for village theme parks to get the same treatment. It takes years to turn things around when they start ripping into a company.

errr. @joel said it was for dreamworld? DMX powered lighting is literally plug into a power point, plug in control cable and hook up a tether. There's usually no wiring or anything dangerous about it.

depends on what the lighting is. Some stuff literally plugs in with very low voltage, no risk to anybody other than the obvious fall risk from working on ladders.

Even if they stopped supplying you with components, you could still rely on their engineering ability with regards to modifications.

You don't need to get rid of all those people. You simply need to get rid of who is one position higher than the majority of those people (capital and purchasing stuff is most likely going to be the board), assuming of course they haven't got their hands tied by company policy. Everyone below can either fall into line and embrace the changes or find themselves another position. You just need to actually give the person enough power and responsibility to enact change and find someone with the balls to make voices heard.

Giant hole in the wall at arkham asylum? I wanted to ride it next week and see how smooth it is after maintenance The station is both load and unload, trying to picture where a hole could be as i think its mainly brick.

With regards to the industrial manslaughter laws, yup it applies to employees. The brisbane accident at the racecourse where people were crushed under concrete tilt panels is probably more applicable to the laws than the dreamworld deaths, both happened in october and were in the news a lot, which forced the government to look at the laws and add something to make people personally responsible. There are other laws regarding workplace safety and injury to the public though. As ive said before, it all depends on the word negligence. It's kind of like the difference between manslaughter and murder. You can kill someone without planning or direct intent. You may not have meant to do it, but you still killed someone, so its not murder, it becomes manslaughter. However if you planned or intended to kill someone, that becomes murder. They basically have to establish you set out, planned or intended to kill someone, that kicks it up a grade to murder. It's sometimes hard to establish a person calculated and planned out the killing. Same thing with negligence. Being able to prove someone was negligent puts it in a higher category. It can also void some insurances and in the case of professional people, can be the difference between being held personally responsible which brings with it personal liability or even jail time. To prove negligence you have to prove that your direct actions (or inaction) was not only responsible for the incident, but you knew about the risk or underlying issues that could have prevented the incident from occurring, and either willfully ignored the risk or did nothing to address the issues. So, in the case of something like these deaths, if the higher up managers and department heads can be proven to have known about the risk; have ignored previous reports from numerous parties (including audits and staff members) indicating faults, flaws or unsafe operating conditions that need to be addressed; and have been shown to have ignored state or federal standards or policies regarding the safe operation of equipment; of which combined together contributed to the deaths of these people; THEN it brings into the question of negligence and is no longer just a matter of a lot of people doing a bad job. From reading the reports, it looks like the difference is going to be how long some of these people were in the position for and what happened if issues were presented to the operating officers at general meetings. Normally major issues of safety or big capital spends would require someone from the general or operations manager upwards to sign off on the proposal. So if it's true and there were numerous reports on TRR with regards to safety, how far up the chain those messages were presented, and if those people ignored them or decided against the recommendations multiple times; then there could be a few people who might actually be facing the prospect of jail time. Big companies have big chains of authority with each progression taking on more responsibility along the way. But ultimately, often major decisions rest with one person, or a group of people with the same control, so basically someone who runs the park or a board who decide on issues of its operation. So even the managerial staff that worked in their maintenance divisions could have been fighting the same battles to have any recommendations implemented and can't rightfully be held responsible. Could they have shut the ride down? probably, but at risk to their own jobs I suspect. So it becomes a big messy area where people do what is required of them, pass the information on to their seniors to act on; who then pass it on again, and again, etc until it reaches high enough to force someone to make a decision. It's a shit culture that becomes more about making sure you keep your own job safe by passing on the responsibility, rather than actually making sure something is done about it.

It doesn't mean they are competent though. You have to demonstrate competency even with someone overseeing them, in fact, thats the point of the buddy system. You literally have someone shadowing you to make sure you are doing ok. A person in a booth with their own responsibilities isn't really providing enough guidance with so many potential distractions going on. Especially in this case where the unloader probably shares equal responsibility for guest safety. If they had a functioning block system that queued the rafts so they arrived and were restrained at the station one at a time so the unloader really didn't need to worry what was happening behind them, then it might be a bit different. In this case, it really sounds like you have to monitor a few things at once, so it's probably a position you should have someone literally standing next to you to help out on your first shift.

Cant find someone culpable and sue them directly without proving negligence. Turning up to work and doing something wrong by accident or in the heat of the moment isnt negligence and you cant be personally liable. Thats what companies have insurance policies for. That someone is going to do a bad job one day and they are going to be sued for it. Worst is your employer can be sued for the incident, and the staff will probably lose their job and insurance companies pickup the tab. So heaping all the blame on an operator is not going to change things for dreamworld come the civil suits. All it does is make them look like bastards for hanging their employees out to dry. It only highlights that maybe those employees shouldnt have been running the ride. Through lack of training, lack of experience or lack of confidence; ultimately it doesnt matter as they put those people in that situation and it is their responsibility to not only provide a safe environment for guests, but employees too. So staffing someone with current training but little to no experience or demonstrated confidence in operating the ride does not mean the employee is competent. All the training in the world is a moot point it the staff are not confident enough to put it into practice or unable to demonstrate competency based on their work. Training someone that morning and turning them over to the ride the same day does not prove competency. Its something that will probably be raised in the findings when the inquest finishes. That training standards and methods were lacking and the inexperience and lack of confidence shown by the ride operators contributed to the deaths.

Looks kinda like the joker incorporates elements from the injustice / arkham game era of the character.

Got to be kidding. They literally have nowhere to hide. If they fired someone for a safety breech, evidently water levels are a very serious issue. If that wasnt drummed into their staff following dismissal of the employee, they need a huge kick up the arse. I was willing to give everyone the benefit of doubt and not point any blame at people, but it looks like both operations and maintenance department supervisors/heads/leaders have a lot to answer for. Its starting to look like their employees might even have a case to take the company to court for failing to provide adequate training and a safe working environment. Keeping everyone in the dark, withholding information, shit like that is the worst kind of micromanaging. It robs all employees the chance to learn from past mistakes and fails to acknowledge or address any issues that might save the company from repeating those same mistakes again. I literally cannot understand why you wouldnt use past incidences as a learning tool. Aside from it giving you a chance to update the control systems to close any loop holes in safety; You have everything at your disposal for personel training. A real incident to examine, the people, the ride it happened on. You could literally walk newly trained operators through and explain not only the events and proceedures to make sure that never happens again, but also drive home the importance of the safety aspect, right while they are standing there. It's just incredible.