PDA

View Full Version : Disney altered crash ride - Orange County Register, 8/5/05



Pages : [1] 2

Darkbeer
08-05-2005, 06:13 AM
http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/08/05/sections/local/local/article_623858.php

QuikQuote: Last week's collision on the California Screamin' roller coaster occurred three months after Disney made major modifications to the braking system without consulting the ride's manufacturer.
State records show Disney changed two brakes in April – in the areas where a purple train passed through without stopping before colliding with a red train and sending 15 people to the hospital. The modifications were found to be safe by state investigators during a June 2 inspection. But the ride's Swiss manufacturer, Intamin AG, says Disney didn't talk to the company about the changes, which is considered a good safety practice industrywide.

Mrs. Newseditor44
08-05-2005, 08:22 AM
http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/2005/08/05/sections/local/local/article_623858.php

QuikQuote: The modifications were found to be safe by state investigators during a June 2 inspection. But the ride's Swiss manufacturer, Intamin AG, says Disney didn't talk to the company about the changes, which is considered a good safety practice industrywide.

Its a whole liability issue now. Disney should have informed Intamin because they would have had their engineers work on a solution together. Rides are modified all the time to fit their geographic locations and because weather issues. I do know for a fact that Intamin does work to find a solution to many problems or concerns with their rides. Who knows what the Intamin engineers could have offered as an alternative and unfortunately people were hurt as a result.

Kelly Ann
08-05-2005, 08:27 AM
Liability is right. A lot of people are going to make a lot of money off of this. I can hear the lawyers drooling from here.

fjhuerta
08-05-2005, 08:36 AM
I'm beginning to think Mr. Pressler's motto... "Ride the rides 'till they break down!" will be felt in Disneyland for years to come. :(

I wonder what they substituted the brakes with. Bubble gum, perhaps?

cstephens
08-05-2005, 09:26 AM
But the state investigators found the changes to be safe during an inspection. Wouldn't that count just as much as if not more than what the manufacturer has to say?

Shortiemetoo
08-05-2005, 09:37 AM
Oh man!!! I am just so glad that there were no fatalities....I bet disneyland always will consult with the companies from now on!!!!

stitchlvr
08-05-2005, 10:13 AM
I thought the injuries were minor. Was someone seriously injured in this accident?

Noah
08-05-2005, 10:13 AM
Disney considers itself the original ride manufacturer of California Screaming with Intamin acting as a outside contractor, if it was not written in contract for Disney to have to seek approval and advice for each repair or upgrade to the ride system then this should not be a negligence issue. There is no law in California requiring the company to seek the manufacturers counsel before modifying the ride system, although in this case how much of a diffrence would it really make since Disney considers itself the ride designer. The article states that Disney moved and added a Current Eddy Brake system, these are brake systems used to slow down fast moving locomotives and trucks etc. Perhaps the brake system itself was defective, untill the investigation is completed there is no way of telling. Although the brake system did slow the train down why did it then release the car from a stop? This is where the ride control system could have come into play, although bottom line is that the system did prevent a catastrophic accident by slowing the train down in the brake zone. A collision at 20 to 30 mph would have included severe trama. Has anyone see the rear part of the train that was hit? How damaged was the train? I wonder at what speed the collision occured at?

teach
08-05-2005, 10:27 AM
Sounds to me like perhaps Intamin may be trying to distance itself from the incident by saying it wasn't consulted regarding modifications. It is their way of saying they are not liable and are trying to lay all responsibility on Disney. The fact that the state officials were satisfied with the last safety inspection as recently as June tells me that the official comments by Intamin are not as significant as they would like one to believe. It is an act of self preservation.

BigAlH
08-05-2005, 10:32 AM
My guess is that the train did indeed stop (or darn near close to it) then released. That means it would of been just a slow roll - under 5mph.

Again, this is just my shot in the dark -- just thinking how cars typically roll after a brake and release.

Toonfinder
08-05-2005, 10:47 AM
I'm with teach on this one. It really just sounds like Intamin is in CYA mode.

The imagineers are experienced enough and fully capable to make modifications to ride systems. This is obviosly an accident and they will learn from it. I sort of look at it like this... if I buy a new Camry I don't have to ask Toyota to put new brakes on it, but they aren't going to give me a warranty on the brakes I installed.

Just as a side note... what a terrible headline for an article... made no sense at all.

coronado_g
08-05-2005, 11:07 AM
But the state investigators found the changes to be safe during an inspection. Wouldn't that count just as much as if not more than what the manufacturer has to say?
I agree. Our state investigators have a LOT more authority over DCA rides than does the manufacturer of DCA rides.

MommyTo3Boys1Girl
08-05-2005, 01:53 PM
I noticed Screamin' is on the refurb list for our November trip.

Darkbeer
08-05-2005, 01:55 PM
Screamin' is currently listed as "TBD" on the park schedules, so on the internet version, the computer just shows it as down everyday on its schedule.

I might be back up by then, but there is still a lot to be decided, including the DOSH investigation.

Barbossa
08-05-2005, 03:15 PM
I don't know who did the design for California Screamin': Disney, Intamin, or both, so I don't know who was qualified to make changes to the brakes. However, I wouldn't trivialize the act of making a design change to a roller coaster or any other engineered system. Any change to a system, especially if lives are on the line, requires 1) a thorough understanding of the existing design 2) the engineering expertise to make the correct modifications and 3) Testing, testing, testing. State investigators are not qualified to look at a modification and approve it based solely on inspection. They are qualified to make sure that the proper people made the modifications, that the mods satisfied government safety specifications, and that the proper amount of testing was performed before a single person stepped foot in the upgraded roller coaster. There was a crash, so something, somewhere, was not properly done. This should not have occurred!

3894
08-05-2005, 03:57 PM
My guess is that the train did indeed stop (or darn near close to it) then released. That means it would of been just a slow roll - under 5mph.

Probably I'm just stating the obvious but even with a slow roll of about 5 mph you could knock out teeth, etc.

cosmicjive
08-05-2005, 04:34 PM
There was a crash, so something, somewhere, was not properly done. This should not have occurred!

While I agree that "this should not have occurred," let's keep in mind that it is a little premature to assume that the crash resulted from the change made to the brakes. Yes, it seems likely at this point that there is some connection, but I'll reserve judgement until the report comes out telling us exactly what happened.

-Jeff "etumor"

Nowhereman
08-05-2005, 04:52 PM
Bottom line is that Disney will be losing a lot of money because of this crash. Everyone on the ride during the accident is able to get some money out of the crash.

Disnerd
08-05-2005, 06:46 PM
It's not that easy to get money from Disney when there is an accident. Look at the back of your ticket. Burried in all that stuff is this line. "Guest assumes the inherent risk associated with the normal operation of all rides and attractions." There is a lot of room in that one statement to allow Disney laywers a lot of wiggle room in the interpetation of that statement.

Disney Vault
08-05-2005, 07:16 PM
I hope no one gets one cent from this. Unless it is to pay for the one day in the hospital for a check. People sue way too much and it just makes me so mad.

Osky
08-05-2005, 08:01 PM
Just to digress a little for all of those crying foul because Disney has not performed a long refurbishment on Screamin'. It will be mighty interesting if the replacement of the brake system caused, either directly or indirectly, the accident. Still much is unknown, so let's wait for that report!

Doug
08-05-2005, 08:46 PM
Yes, I agree... lets wait for the report....


Just to digress a little for all of those crying foul because Disney has not performed a long refurbishment on Screamin'. It will be mighty interesting if the replacement of the brake system caused, either directly or indirectly, the accident. Still much is unknown, so let's wait for that report!

Opus1guy
08-05-2005, 09:23 PM
It's not that easy to get money from Disney when there is an accident. Look at the back of your ticket. Burried in all that stuff is this line. "Guest assumes the inherent risk associated with the normal operation of all rides and attractions." There is a lot of room in that one statement to allow Disney laywers a lot of wiggle room in the interpetation of that statement.

Two points. First, almost everyone knows those "This ticket limits our liability" statements are just mostly mumbo jumbo that's designed to scare away some people from submitting claims. Most of the time the courts quickly rule those boilerplate statements are unenforceable.

Second, even if they were, the key there is "normal." An attractions that inflicts injuries as a result of non-proper performance is anything but normal!

Also, the State Government's licensing or approval of equipment and theme park attractions usually have little value if the opposing attorney does his job. Like some State inspector or inspection team are the end-all experts in hundreds of different complex systems and projects? Ha! Disney will certainly use that in their defense, but the fact of the matter is something went wrong when it shouldn't have. And all that needs to be proved (or just convincing) is that the accident occurred as a result of something Disney did or did not do (if they did or didn't).

Besides, a license is only a permit given for the condition of the item at a specific point in time. Changes and maintenance issues that occurred after the inspections and certifications can certainly effectively void much of the courtroom "value" of such certifications. I don't think you'll see the victims going after the State here!

But just as Disney will almost certainly try to use the State certification in it's defensive arsenal, so will the Plaintiff's attorneys use what the original manufacturer may end up saying or testifying. If the original manufacturer's gets up there and says, "We would have never allowed what Disney did"...then that would really hurt Disney's case.

Personally, like we seen a lot more of lately...I think Disney will make every attempt to make quick settlements out-of-court. The legendary days of Disney fighting every case to the bitter end...even those where they obviously were at fault...are pretty much long-gone, IMHO. They may have to fight it if a few want way too much dough. But I bet most will settle without court actions.

Barbossa
08-05-2005, 09:35 PM
I hope no one gets one cent from this. Unless it is to pay for the one day in the hospital for a check. People sue way too much and it just makes me so mad.

What if they were really hurt? What if they had real monetary damages from an inability to work, for example?

I agree that Americans sue way too much (and I think they sue way too much because they can.). But in some cases lawsuits are justified. Like a car accident, I wouldn't sign anything until I was absolutely certain that I had no long term effects from such an accident.

Pat-n-Eil
08-05-2005, 10:04 PM
the fact of the matter is something went wrong when it shouldn't have.

The very definition of "accident".

I think many people feel that there MUST be blame, because if there is no blame, there is noone to pay. The legal system, therefore cannot just accept that sometimes mechanical devices fail and something unexpected and likely unwanted happens. NASA knows it. Boeing knows it. General Motors and Ford know it too.

What if Disney's fix of the brakes was reasonable and done with due dilligence. What if every expert who looked at it agreed it was properly done and what if the computer system did not fail? Chances are that because someone was hurt, a lawsuit will be filed and blame will most assuredly be assigned where there may be none.