Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But someone other than the attendant (if he, indeed, did adjust the seat for that particular passenger who died) made it possible to override the ride's security mechanism. That should NOT be possible, and that is where the fault lies, IMO...
Machines in general are purposefully designed with safety override features (bypasses) for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to testing, emergency, etc.
Machines in general are purposefully designed with safety override features (bypasses) for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to testing, emergency, etc.
Which IMO goes back to the question of proper training. Why on earth would the employee override a SAFETY feature simply to accommodate a large guest? I would think the importance of using the safety features as intended would be emphasized during training.
I'm beginning to wonder if the training was similar to what our company does, in which it mostly consist of employees watching (fast forwarding through) training videos and checking a box acknowledging they understood what they watched. Very little in the way of hands on experience or question and answer type training.
Not that people always follow safety training, I mean I have seen idiots crawl inside working box balers and garbage compactors when they know better.
Probably. In addition, who wants to be the one to walk up to a young kid already sitting on a ride and tell them, in front of everyone else, "sorry, but you have to get off"? If someone thought the override would be okay-- I'm guessing this was not the first time it was done, and for all we know, someone had told this operator in the past that it was safe to do-- I can see why they might avoid disappointment and humiliation for this kid. Unfortunately, they were wrong that it would be okay or safe...
I'm sure it wasn't the first time, and it apparently WAS safe to do...until it wasn't. Which takes us back to "you don't know what you don't know." If anyone COULD have known, it would've been whatever engineers designed the ride in the first place.
"Fried said the report showed the operator of the park's FreeFall ride, the world's tallest free-standing drop tower at a height of 430 feet, "made manual adjustments to the ride resulting in it being unsafe."
The report by Quest Engineering & Failure Analysis, Inc., said manual manipulations were made to the seat Sampson was sitting in to allow the harness restraint opening to be loosened, apparently to accommodate the more than 300-pound teenager. Fried said the harness restraint opening was "almost double that of a normal restraint opening range." Fried said the adjustment by the individual operator, who was not identified in the report, enabled the FreeFall's sensor lights to illuminate, "improperly satisfying" the ride's electronic safety mechanisms and enabling the ride to operate "even though Mr. Sampson was not properly secured in his seat."
I'm guessing the attendant admitted it when questioned. The article states video was used in determining what happened. TThere were probably cameras recording everything. As well as examination of the ride and a re-creation of the accident using 2 people who weighed between 200 and 300 pounds, and both were able to slip out from under the restraint with ease when it was loosened to the degree Sampson's was.
Thanks for finding it, I agree, it's the employee which is what I thought because of how things I read were worded, but you found better wording that is clear.
I also wonder what type of video the ride has if any. The Colorado drop tower does have video going but it got dark, they couldn't tell which employee checked her seat belt.
I wonder if the employee will be charged? They should be charged with something, even if it's a slap on the wrist because I don't think they're 100% to blame because I've heard there were two or a few seats that would accommodate larger people, so that would be the manufacturer.
Your article won't open for me, I get access denied. Here is another link for anyone that wants to see it.
While they used larger people, they did not use anyone as large as the boy. I would have liked them using someone with a similar body type too in addition to height and weight.
The forensic engineer who wrote the report said his conclusions were partly based an examination of the ride, video of the incident and a reenactment using two individuals, one 6-foot-3, the other 6-foot-5, and both weighing between 200 and 300 pounds.
“During our investigation, two individuals were positioned in a seat with an opening ranging from 6 to 10 inches. Both individuals were able to slip through the restraint opening without assistance,” according to the report.
The forensic engineer’s investigation concluded that the ride “did not experience a mechanical or electrical failure.”
The report also found there “are many other potential contributions to the cause of the accident,” but did not elaborate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubbleT
Which IMO goes back to the question of proper training. Why on earth would the employee override a SAFETY feature simply to accommodate a large guest? I would think the importance of using the safety features as intended would be emphasized during training.
I'm beginning to wonder if the training was similar to what our company does, in which it mostly consist of employees watching (fast forwarding through) training videos and checking a box acknowledging they understood what they watched. Very little in the way of hands on experience or question and answer type training.
Not that people always follow safety training, I mean I have seen idiots crawl inside working box balers and garbage compactors when they know better.
All I can add is that the manufacturer was there training employees before it opened in December until the end of February, so my guess is that it was a lot of hands on training. I posted at least one article that said that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K12144
Probably. In addition, who wants to be the one to walk up to a young kid already sitting on a ride and tell them, in front of everyone else, "sorry, but you have to get off"? If someone thought the override would be okay-- I'm guessing this was not the first time it was done, and for all we know, someone had told this operator in the past that it was safe to do-- I can see why they might avoid disappointment and humiliation for this kid. Unfortunately, they were wrong that it would be okay or safe...
According to an article where the mothers attorney was talking, it was a you tube plus I brought over an article or two that claimed they had people contacting them to say it was not the first time a larger person was riding it and that they were directed to specific seats to use.
If there were designated seats to which larger riders were directed, that confirms what I thought: someone else pre-set them to override the warning. It wasn't the kid taking the tickets that night doing it.
But someone other than the attendant (if he, indeed, did adjust the seat for that particular passenger who died) made it possible to override the ride's security mechanism. That should NOT be possible, and that is where the fault lies, IMO...
I agree it shouldn’t be possible. But the operators manual specifically stated in bolded sentence that if a larger person didn’t fit properly on the seat the person must be told they cannot ride. Which is exactly what the attendants told him on the two rides he tried to go on before this one. So to me it’s both. Actually 3 way fault, because the state shouldn’t allow it to be optional to post height and weight restrictions.
If there were designated seats to which larger riders were directed, that confirms what I thought: someone else pre-set them to override the warning. It wasn't the kid taking the tickets that night doing it.
It was, re-read the article. It specifically says the “individual attendant” and to accommodate Sampson’s size. It wasn’t a bigger seat. They loosened the restraint to accommodate his size. In doing so they made it large enough for him to slip out from under.
I don’t think that the investigators are guessing, they specifically said that video was used in determining the cause as well as other things
Thanks for finding it, I agree, it's the employee which is what I thought because of how things I read were worded, but you found better wording that is clear.
I also wonder what type of video the ride has if any. The Colorado drop tower does have video going but it got dark, they couldn't tell which employee checked her seat belt.
I wonder if the employee will be charged? They should be charged with something, even if it's a slap on the wrist because I don't think they're 100% to blame because I've heard there were two or a few seats that would accommodate larger people, so that would be the manufacturer.
Your article won't open for me, I get access denied. Here is another link for anyone that wants to see it.
While they used larger people, they did not use anyone as large as the boy. I would have liked them using someone with a similar body type too in addition to height and weight.
All I can add is that the manufacturer was there training employees before it opened in December until the end of February, so my guess is that it was a lot of hands on training. I posted at least one article that said that.
According to an article where the mothers attorney was talking, it was a you tube plus I brought over an article or two that claimed they had people contacting them to say it was not the first time a larger person was riding it and that they were directed to specific seats to use.
I don’t think the employee should be charged, even though they were partially at fault. There was no criminal intent. If it’s a design flaw, the engineer doesn’t get charged with a crime.
Probably. In addition, who wants to be the one to walk up to a young kid already sitting on a ride and tell them, in front of everyone else, "sorry, but you have to get off"? If someone thought the override would be okay-- I'm guessing this was not the first time it was done, and for all we know, someone had told this operator in the past that it was safe to do-- I can see why they might avoid disappointment and humiliation for this kid. Unfortunately, they were wrong that it would be okay or safe...
If my job was to provide a safe experience for everyone and there was a chance that someone could die otherwise, yeah, I'd be that guy. Seems kinda obvious to me
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
