Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

TEDodd

Members
  • Posts

    534
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Location
    Rocket City
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,251 profile views

TEDodd's Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

73

Reputation

  1. No problem. Simple search on the site. Sure, charity. And it includes a room in the resort, and more. But even if that was for a month that's too rich for my blood. That's a year of mortgage payments.
  2. https://www.knoxnews.com/story/money/2022/06/25/dolly-parton-knoxville-unveils-heartsong-lodge-and-resort-progress-dollywood/7715704001/ Seems part of it was cut off. Suite 1986 might be fun but the price is way to steep. Story I saw earlier said it starts at $10k.
  3. Someone modified the ride allowing it to register closed when it was up too high. So no good reason to closs others or add a unnecessary seatbelts, especially not regular towers that don't tilt the seats forward. The restraints work perfectly if not modified.
  4. So if someone gets food poisoning (and dies) at a restaurant leasing space the park is responsible? Or slips in a shop leasing space there, the park is responsible? I just don't buy that. A dealership has a special relationship with the OEM and represents the OEM. Quite different than just leasing space. In this case the park had no reason to suspect the ride was improperly modified. If not for that modification he never would have been on the ride. It's not like the park let someone build a ride without proper engineering and approvals. It was purchased from a major ride manufacturer and the installation was approved by the state regulators.
  5. disappointing. Absolutely no good reason to add them or for it to still be closed.
  6. It's been slow lately. Wait till the next ride starts construction. FWIW I recall seeing the image too but can't find it either.
  7. They have little/no control over the running or operations of anyone they rent space to.
  8. I think you meant Slingshot, I don't see how ICON is responsible at all.
  9. Granted I don't have direct knowledge of this system, but generally the sensor would be replaced by the owner's/operator's maintenance team. They don't have OEM reps come out for every bad part. When replacing a part there would be adjustments so it triggers correctly (ie the harness in the correct position). That it could be that far out is surprising, but I still would expect a test with the harness in multiple positions to ensure it reads go and no-go correctly.
  10. I can't either. The guys running the ride cycle to cycle wouldn't have the tools, time, and I doubt knowledge. This would have been maintenance personnel. Was it an oversight or a directed change? If not on purpose was there some sort of testing to verify the adjustment following maintenance on the sensor? If not, why not? I'd expect the manual from the manufacturer to include such tests/adjustment procedures. But do owners write their own versions like they do with operations manuals? If so was this left out or changed?
  11. Sounds like at least involuntary manslaughter. Then the civil suits against the company will likely put them out of business.
  12. Well that would explain how it had a green light with it up so high. Seems to tie back to their claims of no height weight limits.
  13. We don't have that information yet. But this wasn't a borderline case, it's clear to anyone that understands how the restraints work that it was not correct. What used to be called "common sense" would have been enough.
  14. Exactly. The people running the ride have to have some responsibility in ensuring the restraints are properly positioned on a given rider. That means training and doing the task as trained. Automation, switches, sensors, and such help, but can't replace the human yet. Relying on those alone is a recipe for disaster. I'm not absolving the manufacturer completely, as I can't figure out a rider that the high position would be safe for (though happy to be corrected by someone that can). But I still have to fault the owner for their claims of "no height or weight limit" and apparent lack of training about such limits. And I still fault the operators for not seeing that the restraint was not going work in that position. No one here looks at the pictures and thinks that restraint was positioned safely and neither should the operators. Unless they were specifically told that was safe, and even then I would have to question such an instruction. I've had plenty of situations where the rules/training said something was OK and I wasn't comfortable with that and challenged such rules (sometime I was show the information I was missing making it safe and sometimes I was proven correct).
  15. Then have one in case of questionable riders. But the owners said there were no limits, not height or weight. If they had publicized/posted a limit most would have voluntarily complied. And the ops would have at least questioned larger riders that were clearly over the limit. Sure someone 295 or 300 might have snuck through, but 340?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/