2 hours ago, Brad2912 said:

it was a freak accident that the police & Coroner could not even replicate despite attempting for 3 days...

Was this something I missed at the time? I haven't read anything suggesting this. The only quote I could find even vaguely on the results of the re-enactment appears to suggest the opposite:

Quote

McDougall said the re-enactment, which involved the use of weighted crash test dummies in one of the ride’s rafts, gave him an insight into the crash.

“It was all very complicated,” he said. “The investigation is going extremely well. It will take a long time ... months, I’d say.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/01/dreamworld-deaths-coroner-sees-re-enactment-of-fatal-ride

 

I don't think there's any doubt that design, modification, maintenance and operational issues were the cause here. While the consensus here seems to be that it was a freak accident, I'd lean to it being a perfect storm of issues and entirely preventable were the ride properly designed and operated.

That it passed its certification isn't a vindication of Dreamworld; it's an indictment of the inspection and certification process.

1 hour ago, Richard said:

Was this something I missed at the time? I haven't read anything suggesting this. The only quote I could find even vaguely on the results of the re-enactment appears to suggest the opposite:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/01/dreamworld-deaths-coroner-sees-re-enactment-of-fatal-ride

 

I don't think there's any doubt that design, modification, maintenance and operational issues were the cause here. While the consensus here seems to be that it was a freak accident, I'd lean to it being a perfect storm of issues and entirely preventable were the ride properly designed and operated.

That it passed its certification isn't a vindication of Dreamworld; it's an indictment of the inspection and certification process.

 

When the admin leans toward my side rather than the others' <3 

The ride was in house built. I would like to see them get a Intimin one, but i don't think the GP or the media will like that.

11 minutes ago, Prequel said:

The ride was in house built. I would like to see them get a Intimin one, but i don't think the GP or the media will like that.

 

D/W will NEVER have another rapids ride again. Mark my words.

I agree, they could however be looking at another water based ride to fill in that area? 

2 minutes ago, ClassifiedLlama said:

I agree, they could however be looking at another water based ride to fill in that area? 

I wouldn't think that they'd be doing that straight away, it would be nice to see a new water ride go into the area. It is a fairly large area, so what would fit into it? It has quite a rather large area to cover. 

34 minutes ago, Richard said:

Was this something I missed at the time? I haven't read anything suggesting this. The only quote I could find even vaguely on the results of the re-enactment appears to suggest the opposite

Here you go...

Earlier this month police concluded their investigation as to what caused the Thunder River Rapids Ride to malfunction. However investigators were reported to be unable to recreate the freak conditions that led to the accident. An inquest is likely to be held in the first half of next year.

From: http://www.news.com.au/news/dreamworld-issued-three-prohibition-notices-over-buzzsaw-ride-during-whsq-audit/news-story/d005999940acb5077b5995bda959e6cd

 

8 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

Here you go...

Earlier this month police concluded their investigation as to what caused the Thunder River Rapids Ride to malfunction. However investigators were reported to be unable to recreate the freak conditions that led to the accident. An inquest is likely to be held in the first half of next year.

From: http://www.news.com.au/news/dreamworld-issued-three-prohibition-notices-over-buzzsaw-ride-during-whsq-audit/news-story/d005999940acb5077b5995bda959e6cd

 

I don't think the context there is entirely accurate. The police may have concluded their onsite investigation, but a final investigation will take months to complete. The wording in that statement is also fairly vague, it states that they couldn't recreate the "freak conditions" but not necessarily the outcome itself (however it can probably be assumed as such). 

I don't think you can dispute the fact that it was a freak accident, but I also don't think this is entirely accurate reporting. 

I never said the reporting was completely fact based and 100% grounded in truth, just that it was reported, which until the coronial enquiry concludes is all we can go offer. 

It would be fairly simple (I wouldn't imagine) to recreate the effect of a malfunctioning/underperforming pump, and to replicate a bottomed out/stopped raft. I imagine it also wouldn't be hard to replicate a collision between two rafts. Maybe, speculation only, they wouldn't get the raft to lift & flip as it did on the day... 

Each step would be possible to do, having all steps happen in series would be where the difficulty lies and is how I interpreted the article @Brad2912 has linked to. 

That's what I was trying to get across as well

1 hour ago, the12thworld said:

I wouldn't think that they'd be doing that straight away, it would be nice to see a new water ride go into the area. It is a fairly large area, so what would fit into it? It has quite a rather large area to cover. 

Well, they could put in something like the Cheetah Hunt, as it incorporate the Jungle and the water, would also be a fantastic family attraction and would be a great addition to the park before the commonwealth games in 2018. 

@ClassifiedLlama that would be cool but we won't see anything like this in the Gold rush area for at least 3 year minimum. Rides like that take a couple of years from planning stage to delivery. Most parks have a 5 year plan. So I believe a new attraction would come to Gold Rush in around 3 years. Unless a Eureka replacement was already in the works.

Just now, Tim Dasco said:

@ClassifiedLlama that would be cool but we won't see anything like this in the Gold rush area for at least 3 year minimum. Rides like that take a couple of years from planning stage to delivery. Most parks have a 5 year plan. So I believe a new attraction would come to Gold Rush in around 3 years. Unless a Eureka replacement was already in the works.

Okay! Thanks for letting me know, I didnt quite know how long it took to develop a ride, but i kinda new 2 years (not even) was a bit of a stretch.

Abyss I believe took 3 years. The park has to come up with the plan and then talk to the manufacture and get the manufactures to produce plans. Once a manufacture has made a plan that the park likes they will start making the ride (where they have a free slot. Companies like RMC have a 4 year waiting list) Then the manufacture builds the ride and ships it over. Then the ride needs to be built itself and then tested.