Levithian

Its simple. The parks will have a break even limit. If they cant get exemptions for at minimum that level, theyll ride out the restrictions as long as the government funding holds out and address potential redundancies and job losses if it progresses further. Dont forget they will have factored in the complete lack of international visitors too and if state border restrictions continue longer, its only going to hurt numbers further. Its also worth noting that social distancing rules apply even when these restrictions are relaxed. So youre still expected to maintain your 1.5m spacings and limit indoors to the 4sqm rule as before. How do you plan to maintain that on a roller coaster? Run cars/trains at 1/4 capacity?

I think Its based more of the track attachment on the spine than the actual columns. So you can have multiples of the same number, maybe like 1a, 1b, 1c, etc. Can see some little plaques on the bases of the columns with this detail if you stand on the bridge under the lift and look in dc rivals and green lantern compounds / around the garden on the corner. Some columns are tagged with the same number so there are duplicates.

What is that based off? Movieworld replying to guests on facebook, or do you have some first hand information? Looks pretty dead driving past oxenford at the moment. Even the barriers/fencing are still up around green lantern.

Theres nothing to subsidise tourism wise while the parks are closed due to federal government restrictions. Who is game to guess when they will consider it ok to relax restrictions on entertainment venues while we are on virtual lockdown with them predicting peak infection rates in maybe june or july? Could literally be months after the peaks occur that they are no longer worried about triggering another wave of infection by allowing mass gatherings again. So theres probably zero point investing anything until there is a recovery date on the horizon. Supply chains for all industries are so messed up right now. Looking at how much drama we are having getting engineered timber products into the country for builds, weve had to put some jobs back 6 months until the dust settles and we know more about supply issues, freight, interstate movements, etc. Hell even just getting things through council took a major dump with offices being on virtual shutdown and people working from home. And thats frequently a slow process at the best of times when everyone who needs to put their 2 cents in resides in the same building. It could legit be 12 months before everything can function as normal again, and thats without any impact the recession is bound to have. All bets are off if it heads into a global depression though as some suppliers/manufacturing may never recover or even reopen, so there are going to be disruptions everywhere.

When we go into stage 3 restrictions, theyll be in place a month or if people are still dicks, itll go to level 4 and be months. If the parks are open for the september holidays id consider it good going.

Probably not a lot since it was planned for a different park originally, and has been paid for. Maybe a little longer if it hasnt been produced, but china are relaxing border controls and starting manufacturing again. Container ships are still traveling and arent part of restrictions. I dont think you have to worry about it being canceled or put on hiatus though. Even if it takes a little longer to arrive.

Worst idea ever. Aside from a money maker; The screens are used during the day. Even if they werent, its not something you hang and setup inside the hour after park closure waiting for the event to start. It effectively turns the whole plaza into a multipurpose venue. Qld summer, the main street provides massive amounts of shade. Plus. Qld summer, main street provides massive amounts of shelter in torrential rain. Hail is common. The existing material would survive better than anything like that. Youd also have to frequently clean those surfaces, but they arent really capable of being stood on. Mold and mildew shows up on the existing roof as it is, but at a glance its largely ignored. Imagine what a clear surface would look like covered in bird crap, moss, dirt, mold, etc..

You cant cantilever a structure like this because its basically a big sail. So you need those posts pretty much exactly where they are at those spacings. Its not holding the roof up, its holding the roof on. Cant just move them back another 8m even if the hsd seating had enough space for the supports.

They didnt get paid when it flooded and people were sent home apparently. That was just a number of hours. What happens when thats weeks?

In before people start complaining they are just being used as billboards with round the clock ads.

Not sure how it works at disney, but apparently VRTP staff wont get paid if they close any of their parks as there is something in their contracts that means they dont have to if they shutdown. So its probably a pretty big consideration if/when they close and how long for, the hardships it will cause staff. Youd just be listening to government advisers. They havent closed schools yet for example. 2 weeks, even a month isnt going to make you safe while its still spreading. People are going to keep getting sick even though cricket and footy are closed games. How long does it go on for? Is there a point where the risk is low enough to resume? Because you cant completely remove the threat.. Will it slow progress? I guess thats their point, but how do you stop multiple waves occurring? Do you close parks for 2 weeks anytime there is a positive test from a guest or staff member? This could drag on for months. That chief medical officer was saying it may be mid year before peak is reached .

about to drop lower as soon as coronavirus hits.

I dont know many people that look behind them. Or do we need a diagram?

You can hide things like scene/screen transitions or gaps in the physical sets by moving the car away from sight lines that make these things really visible and ruin the immersion is what im getting at. You have a lot of control over what people are looking at. Dont literally need to build out the whole set from floor to ceiling to make sure you dont have any bleed from the previous scene. You can just rotate the car away and towards the start of the next scene on the opposite side.

Trackless drive systems like this are just amazing. Look how much more scope you have viewing wise when you can turn the car 90 degrees and keep driving forward or backwards, or sidewards. Hell, you can even do a pirouette if you want. Everyone is looking exactly what you want them to focus on because you can just move the position of the car. So much more immersive and seamless when you really have no feeling for exactly where you are going.

Of all places to find a kinda weird dedication to gaudi, i guess japan ranks highly on the "what is this doing here" meter.

Do you seriously think 15 mins is going to save them a bunch of money? The couple of rides you actually noticed probably had delayed openings for a reason. Operations staff have checks and runs to do once maintenance are done, so maybe there were hold ups that impacted the whole morning.

Still not as deadly as influenza. Mortality rate is lower too so far. Media will (and are) ride this into the ground using fear to make money. Everyone else will suffer and they will have an active hand in sending some businesses to the wall. So that means we havent reached anywhere near peak yet. The stock market is the greatest risk. If things keep falling, retirement/super savings are the least of our worries. Super funds are some of the largest private financers of infrastructure projects in the country. They have billions of dollars at their disposal and even the federal government go to them for loans. If we see another round of "corrections", what does it start to do if their own investments are being impacted and the economy is going backwards. Will they be so interested in making a couple hundred billion dollar investment in federal plans over the next 5 years?

The proper people were in china last year and have put up another urbex, this time a trip to a sinking waterpark.

Maybe some of you may think a little differently if you remember that the engineering manager was previously a supervisor at movieworld, so standing there saying you didnt know you needed to do risk assessments, had no formal process for modifying or documenting repairs or didnt know it was part of your job just doesnt fly. Id be willing to bet money there is paperwork burried within the archives at vrtp that has his name on a bunch of processes doing exactly those things. It's lucky the coroner didnt hand down a reccomendation OIR seek to prosecute individual people because he might have been in a lot of trouble if they went digging for evidence. Edit: by saying that i mean it potentially shows someone was negligent in their duties and can be legally held accountable.

No it doesnt. It says that Mr Ritchie agree that the current proposed upgrades required addressing now, thats all. He goes further to state that additional changes were intended to be completed after these immediate upgrades, but acknowledges this was only in discussion. He felt strongly enough about the additional upgrades to include them in his proposal and actually says the upgrades would improve safety, so how can you say he felt otherwise? The inquest finds that such measures should have been implemented and that if any risk analysis had been performed they would have been highlighted. Mr Ritchies proposal should have been enough to trigger investigation. The engineering supervisor agreed the additions were warranted, and thats basically as far it went. The issue of ride operation and low water level danger needs no addressing because everyone, right down to dreamworld, their policies and the ride operations manual ALL agree it is. You cannot say it is or isnt implied, when it has been outlined how important it is. It causes a ride safety stoppage and the conveyor is manually halted and immediate assistance is required. This is why the employee was fired in 2014 because it explicitly states that the conveyor cannot be restarted during low water levels like what follows a pump failure, and that operators are not permitted to restart pumps without seeking approval. He did both of this and was fired. So, knowing all this, if a skilled, engineering employee creates a proposal seeking to address monitoring of water levels and implementing an automatic control measure; do you think this is done because it is a critical risk already highlighted and understood, or do you think there is still some conjecture as to if he felt the water level was a safety risk at all and just proposed the additions for seemingly monetary value? Even if you want to argue he had no idea, someone above did or should have. And if they didnt, the person above them should have. The proposal shouldnt have been ignored, it should have been followed up and investigated. The engineering manager even agrees this should have happened and this is simply just another example of the opportunity dreamworld had to address a critical flaw in the rides operation which was mismanaged. Which is what the report finds.

Im thinking were the disagreements are coming from is maybe because the mechanical side of the findings ia really two part. If you view it like this, it kinda clears things up a bit. As far as safety goes, the water level is the primary factor. You cannot dispute this and its why there is even talk of a level system control. Mitigate the water level problem and the entire safety risk is removed. This is agreed upon by investigators, both engineers and the police. Secondary, and the other major factor is the conveyor continued to run in this state. These are the main contributing factors that pose a continual risk at all times across years and were not mitigated, ever. This means there has always been these underlying risks in its operation that should have been addressed over its 30 years. In addition to these, the state of the conveyor, in regards to slats, etc and the gap between the rails in the trough and the front of the conveyor were highlighted, along with the inadequate e-stop placement/system as major contributing factors to this incident occurring. That is it is specific in this incident only and deemed that addressing either the state of the conveyor or the gap between the rails and the conveyor would have likely meant this incident would not have occurred. Again, this specific to this incident. Its why the report noted earlier comments by bob tan about rafts flipping over completely. The underlying issues with the ride since its commissioning were still there. Its why the report makes mention of even if these specific contributing issue were addressed or the factors had not occurred, there was still an underlying unacceptable risk that needed addressing which could cause further incidences different to this one which killed people.

Its because you keep reading in point form. Go back and read the whole testimony. It shows a discussion on conveyor safety occurred and the front end of the conveyor wasnt considered for upgrade. How do you know the risk was even considered? Because the employee notes that the intended upgrades being completed now would provide monitoring or all alarms, all water levels and the pump loads. What the report is saying is the employee identified a possible risk, was not tasked with mitigating that risk, but still put forward a proposal to Upgrade the control system to mitigate that risk. It goes on to state that it was his view that this could be performed to enhance safety and save the company money. It states that these issues were put forward to the engineering supervisor via email. Section 135 confirms these discussions and acknowledges Mr Ritchie raising the danger and putting forward additions to the planned works. It literally says the engineering supervisor agrees with his proposal for additional works but that it could not be completed at this stage, and to focus on the upgrades to the bottom. Further to this, in section 139 , later discussions about this additional works were had with the company (PFI) during a site visit in August 2015. This means the discussion and the proposal put forward by Mr Ritchie occurred prior to this and tha the engineering manager deemed them important enough to raise with pfi. Even if by his own account this was informal, but by later admission, this is largely how much of their work was planned. Voiced rather than documented. Futhermore, scroll down to section 144 and have a read how eerily similar the log ride operation was. In 2013 pfi was tasked by the same engineering manager with performing an upgrade that included water level monitoring on the log ride. It goes on to show from records that the engineering manager identified this risk, how important water level management was, and that he personally viewed the ride operation, was made aware that boats could crash into each other and deemed an upgrade was required to stop this from happening. So, the same engineering manager raised the very same issues back in 2013 and proposed they be addressed by upgrades to control systems to monitor water levels, and even proposed that a block system needed to be in place to stop boats coming off and crashing into each other. He tasked pfi with planning and quoting this upgrade which was performed. The whole cost of implementing all these systems was $16000. Why were these same issues not investigated with the river rapids ride? The engineering manager states that even though significant upgrades were performed to the log ride, no risk assessment was ever completed either. Not before or afterwards. WTF?! It speaks to management performing works and making changes without proper planning or analysis. So yes. The report finds the water level is of primary importance and that an automated control system should be in place to halt the ride and operation of the conveyor in the event it occurs. They are not talking about indicator lights being installed if water level monitoring was installed because they already found warning lights signifying the pump stoppage on the control panel were an inadequate control system. Further to this point, talk of a safety interlock being installed for the conveyor is exactly what you are querying. An interlock shuts off power to a device and it cannot be restarted or reset until the issue is rectified. It means it has the ability to stop it being restarted in the event of a failure which would address a situation like the 2014 incident where the operator was dismissed from occurring. We can argue sensors vs conveyor and how it would be implemented all we want but the report says it best really. They knew the rafts can hit. They knew the rafts could be lifted and even flipped. They knew the water level was critical for the ride to function. They knew people were not capable of managing the risk on the ride and had fired an employee to the fact. They knew all this from in house incidences and experiences and did little to mitigate or exclude the risk of injury or death and are entirely to blame for the tragedy.

How can you infer that? It clearly states and is the view of multiple parties that a safety feature that monitored water levels is what was needed. The conveyor is already monitored and gated. How is it the problem? That they are proposing is that the water level monitoring would have, within seconds of the pump stopping, halted the conveyor. This would have caused a ride safety fault. This was 100% relied upon by humans to judge. The report found this completely unacceptable, because even someone completely aware of the water level dropping would not be expected to react in time, and the difference between human and automated process would prevent an incident like this occurring 100% Its why they keep ramming home the phrase risk assessment. Its literally a document that studies what is at risk, the potential for injury or death, how this risk can be mitigated or removed completely. They are so common they are used daily, across multiple facets. It shouldnt have even been a yearly thing, one should have been performed anytime someone was to work on the ride or attend a shut down because there is a massive risk to staff when working on plant equipment like this, so assessments remove complacency about the dangers of being in that environment. Following multiple shutdowns, the incidents should have been debriefed within the management team. Dreamworld acknowledged they have meetings that do exactly that, address failures and breakdowns. This is when further risk to ride operation should have been discussed. Its why the report finds there is a systemic failure within the management of the park as every level of management ultimately failed to manage the risk.

You missed the reasoning for the proposal, not the physical plans for the upgrade. Its in the paragraph above it. Starts at paragraph 129.