kyleparks77

This doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying that the ride could have just "magically" had some sort of problem that couldn't be traced back to any human or mechanical error??!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Seriously people. Are you all just TRYING to get quoted in the "dumbest thing posted to TPR" thread? Please tell me that is the case because it makes me lose sleep at night thinking people could actually be this stupid. No, not at all. Example of specific issues: restraint failure, inadequate weight, etc Example of issue harder to pinpoint: the front of the raft lifted up due to variable forces - which there are a lot of in anything with water - aligning just right (or "magic") I'm not saying this is what caused the accident, but there's a possibility that there was not one specific failure that can be pinpointed (happens all the time). If that's the case, it will be harder (if not impossible) to correct it, make the public feel safe, and reopen. Or maybe his restraint failed and they simply need different restraints. Again, completely dependent upon the findings of the investigation. Please stop. You're just following up one incredibly stupid post with an even dumber idiotic post. Let me just be the one to say it to you so we can save other people from reading your garbage: You know nothing about what you are writing about. No additional words by you will make a stronger case that you know what you are writing about. Stop posting in this thread. Go find another thread to post it. Try REALLY HARD not to be dumb in whatever other thread you choose. And yeah, that pretty much sums it up!

This doesn't make any sense at all. Are you saying that the ride could have just "magically" had some sort of problem that couldn't be traced back to any human or mechanical error??!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Seriously people. Are you all just TRYING to get quoted in the "dumbest thing posted to TPR" thread? Please tell me that is the case because it makes me lose sleep at night thinking people could actually be this stupid. No, not at all. Example of specific issues: restraint failure, inadequate weight, etc Example of issue harder to pinpoint: the front of the raft lifted up due to variable forces - which there are a lot of in anything with water - aligning just right (or "magic") I'm not saying this is what caused the accident, but there's a possibility that there was not one specific failure that can be pinpointed (happens all the time). If that's the case, it will be harder (if not impossible) to correct it, make the public feel safe, and reopen. Or maybe his restraint failed and they simply need different restraints. Again, completely dependent upon the findings of the investigation.

I think it all comes down to the findings of the investigation. If they are able to pinpoint a specific cause or failure (whether it be human error or mechanical/design error) and correct it, then it could reopen. "We found issue X and have corrected it, along with adding other safeguards." But if the investigation finds that just "something'' happened by pure chance, and combine that with the ride's well-known issues before initial opening, then I have a hard time seeing it opening again. "We're not entirely sure what happened, but we believe it's safe now."

They need a good steel and a dark ride BAD. I guess they listened Interesting reading from the beginning. Some of the parks aren't even around anymore or have been completely overhauled.

^good point. Even the ProSlide hydromagnetics have the same netting.

In all engineering, the is the FS variable. It's the Factor of Safety. This value is used to account for "unknown" variable forces and for redundancy. It also somewhat accounts for "human error" and discrepancies during construction. Whatever this value is determined to be (for example, it's often 6 for structural steel bridges), ALL forces are multiplied by it during design. I don't know what the FS is for slide/coaster design, but if part of the boat did indeed leave the track, it seems that either the initial forces were underestimated, or the FS was not high enough to account for variable forces such as wind, riders shifting, hydraulic gradient, etc. Or perhaps all of the ride engineering was correct, but human error came into play with something such as the restraint not being properly fastened. Even so, if the ride had so many dangerous variables, it seems the restraint should have had some redundancy.

^ just be thankful nobody was recording it with a cellphone at the time. Our twisted society would be sharing it on all forms of social media.

From only judging the pictures of the boy, he probably weighed closer to 75 lbs than 100 lbs. But even if he did weigh 75 lbs, each of the other riders would only need to weigh around 163 lbs... Edit: I now see what you're saying about the reason for his brother not being with him.

The thing that gets me is the netting. Why was it there? Most likely to prevent a boat from flying off a ride. I'm sorry, but as an engineer myself, I would have NEVER felt good about signing off on something where the "fail safe" is still a catastrophic accident.

*Finishes eating popcorn in disappointment*

*grabs popcorn*

There would have been MULTIPLE stamps of approval from engineers. From the foundations to the supports to the netting, everything gets designed, reviewed, and signed by an engineer. If they don't have in-house engineers, then they have consultants who take on the same amount of responsibility.

Before any of this expansion/new ride stuff happens, something major HAS TO be done about The Voyage.

Is that one of the ride boats to the right? I wonder if it ended up there by accident or was it pulled off the ride in the aftermath?

^ to me, it looks "permanent temporary". It's not on a trailer, and the ground appears it was graded level specifically for it.