Amusement Park ride tragedy 9

[Brian Malone]

https://youtu.be/ozhnXp9OWEk

A 14 year old was killed when he slipped out of the restraint harness on this free drop ride. He was a very large teen - more than 6 ft tall and about 340 lbs. From what I have seen in other stories, he exceeded the ride manufacturer's stated weight limit.

This looks like it may be a case of additive errors leading to a bad outcome:
1. It appears the over- shoulder restraint bar/harness did not have an interlock for ensuring proper latching before allowing the ride to function. Or if an interlock system exists, the interock did not work.
2. Ride operators did not check all rider's harnesses status prior to starting the ride.
3. The ride operator appears to have discounted the kid questioning why there was not any 'click'
4. The ride operator(s) either ignored the allowable weight limit for riders or were not trained to enforce the limit. Chances are there may not be a scale in the entry queue and the operators have to use a visual estimation of rider's weight.
5. Apparently the ride does not have seatbelts as a redundant safety measure. There appeared to be some questioning about a seatbelt.
6. The young man may have become anxious as the ride rose and he moved toward the front edge of the seat or pushed up on the restraint/harness in an attempt to ease his anxiety and thus changed his body angle and CG relationship, thus moving out of the cup of the seat. Anxious or not, by the very motion of the ride his body would react against the over- shoulder restraint bar/harness during the drop and if it has a rotation axis to ease entry and it was not locked it would be free to rotate and reorient the young man's body angle in relationship to the seat. Upon deceleration, the kid just slid out under the restraint.

The details are still unckear but this ride is a new construction so it will be interesting to see the failure report.

 

[Cool_Controls]

Anybody know what category 5 system means, I'm familiar with SIL(safety intergaty level) levels but they only go to 4.

May mean class 5 restraint system Link

 

[dik]

It's like Crunchy Froggie, it wouldn't be death defying, then, would it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-5h0L-SSqk

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

[LittleInch]

But why was that letter issued on 19th JAN this year?

This can only be a result of something else that happened or was in question. You don't issue letters like that for no reason.

And it leaves more questions.
Cat 5 to what standard? As stated it is meaningless. You could say Cat 1000,

What "requirements"???
What TUV standards???

The letter says nothing.
IMHO.


Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[IRstuff]

Is the letter even real? I note that the date format is American, not European
As for TUV:

https://blog.1000bulbs.com/home/wha...cation means a,UL wet location safety rating.

This seems apropos: A Retrospective Study of Amusement Ride Restraint and Containment Systems: Identifying Design Challenges for Statistically Rare Anthropometric Cases


TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Brian Malone]

I don't see that as a smoking gun; the issue is whether the victim was covered by the requirements

Yes, good point - this ride is stated to meet some type of requirements. So what is the standard/requirements? And possibly those requirements are deficient if they don't consider boundary conditions.

But why was that letter issued on 19th JAN this year?

This can only be a result of something else that happened or was in question. You don't issue letters like that for no reason.

I think the ride was constructed in Dec. 2021 Maybe during commissioning of the ride someone asked 'Hey, where the seatbelts? Did they forget to send them?'

 

[Brian Malone]

May mean class 5 restraint system Link

Wow - the project report in the link is very detailed. It does mention there are no mandatory federal standards, only voluntary use of ASTM standards.

 

[dik]

Although the catagory does not seem to be properly referenced, it does appear to conform to Class 5 in the document shown. In particular the last 3 items, and possibly 4 items. It's also nice to see the applicable ASTM docs referenced, just to know what ones might be required:

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

[IRstuff]

And possibly those requirements are deficient if they don't consider boundary conditions.

Safety requirements are functional, it's up to the designer to identify the boundary conditions and design accordingly, and limit usage accordingly. Otherwise, safety requirements couldn't not even be written; can you imagine trying to anticipate the boundary conditions for this particular ride before anyone even knew they wanted to design one?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Brian Malone]

IRStuff good point as was your previous one about if there was a serious safety culture in place at the park, all operators would have felt empowered to deny Tyre entry into rides he was outside the allowable limits.

 

[spsalso]

Yes.

Did they feel empowered? To what extent? In particular, was that true for the particular ride operator at the time?

If they felt empowered at the time, did they feel the need to act on that empowerment? If they did not, why not?




spsalso

 

[IRstuff]

Did they feel empowered? To what extent? In particular, was that true for the particular ride operator at the time?

If they felt empowered at the time, did they feel the need to act on that empowerment? If they did not, why not?

That's a valid point; people, in general, tend to want to avoid conflict; this might have been coupled with some level of intimidation factor of potentially conflicting with someone who is taller and heavier.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[LittleInch]

Cat 5 also calls for
"Redundant locking device function"
And
"Two restraints or one failsafe function"

Difficult to see those at the moment.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[Cool_Controls]

Class 5 allows for a varible latching position, it seems to me all the redundancy is meaningless if the latch position is not close enough to the rider, but I guess that's where the operators come in.

 

[dik]

It could be that the occupant is much larger than the limiting size; it the latching/test devices could be inoperable, for some reason. We have to wait until more information comes out.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

[dik]

There's an even more interesting legal dilemma. How do they go about improving the safety training and enforcing limitations on the equipment, without admitting to liability for not having these procedures in place, prior to the accident?

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

[IRstuff]

If they settle, they can set the terms, which usually includes a non-admission of fault

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Cool_Controls]

The American way, dead kid on the ground, nobody's fault. Blood money.

 

[spsalso]

"...they can set the terms,..."

I don't think so. If there is a settlement, the terms of settlement are mutually agreed upon. If both sides don't come to an agreement on those terms, it goes to trial.

The defendant cannot unilaterally set those terms. Neither can the plaintiff.

IF there is a "non-admission of fault", it will have been accepted by the plaintiffs. And it will only apply to this case.


spsalso

 

[dik]

I suspect all parties have been in contact with their lawyers, by now, who will direct them from this point forward.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

Its reported this side of the pond that the kid was 150kg/340lbs.

I don't think any pax carrying standard would require that load to be taken into account.

By rights he wouldn't have been able to sit in a pax aircraft seat. Although this is a contentious subject if you can deny a pax that would over load the seat.