The Six Flags Magic Mountain (SFMM) Discussion Thread

[Tmcdllr]

^Case in point

[gdoggy1678]

That's terrible but really what is the park supposed to do... stop a ride every time somebody complains like this? Sure in this case it may have prevented this but if they stopped a ride every time a guest complained about something, made up or not, rides would never run. As far as the rest of her complaint I don't know.

When I used to operate rides if a guest complained about anything we needed to do something, we would not just forget about it. If it was car related we wouldn't load the car until the correct person could check it out, if it was a brake problem we would watch and see if it braked to hard to little etc. It also helps that were I worked there are cameras at every angle of the ride and could actually see a branch on a track and hopefully stop it on the lift or block before it's to late. Six flags does need to improve having their operators have a full complete view of the ride through cameras of some sort.

[dylanreich]

I agree too, safety first, and if there is an obvious injury such as bruising or bleeding then yes, do the inspection now. But I'm sure the parks get guest complaints all the time of alleged 'injuries' on rides with no obvious signs of the injury and in that case, should they then stop the ride and inspect it every time that happens? Maybe it depends on the alleged injury, I don't know, or, does this even happen often enough- real or fake, to even cause a problem? What do you guys think? I'm sure they are many of you that have visited parks more frequently than I have so what is your take on this, have you seen such an incident before?

It's not safety first if there's a but.

If they get a report of something obstructing the course of the track, yes they should inspect it every time it happens. The thinking that an inspection shouldn't be made because there weren't any obvious signs of injury is a fallacy. Part of the point of the inspection is to prevent injuries from happening. The line of thinking that something should not get checked out because nothing serious has happened yet is exactly how this situation came to be.

 

EDIT: Again, I will use Disney and Universal (and Cedar Fair parks) as examples of parks that are safety-first and would have shut down the ride immediately. I don't think the large amount of people in the park and waiting on rides stops those parks from taking the safety-first approach (to address the idea that no one would get to ride if the park responded to these complaints).

[Jay20016]

That's terrible but really what is the park supposed to do... stop a ride every time somebody complains like this? Sure in this case it may have prevented this but if they stopped a ride every time a guest complained about something, made up or not, rides would never run. As far as the rest of her complaint I don't know.

 

Yes. If a guest comes back from a ride injured (beyond things like head banging) you should (IMO) stop operation to find out why.

 

I completely agree as well. As the saying goes, safety first. And I'm not quite sure, Tmcdllr, what you mean by "every time somebody complains 'like this' because I don't know of any other complaints like this. In my opinion (and I don't see why this is even a debatable issue), someone getting hurt on a ride (as Comeagain stated, outside of something like headbanging) is serious and should be taken seriously by the park. If Disney, Universal, or Knott's received a complaint that someone was hurt from an obstruction on a ride, you bet they're going to shut down the ride immediately.

 

And to the argument that rides would never run if they addressed complaints whether they were made up or not, well look, Ninja can't run AT ALL right now because they didn't look into something they should have.

 

I agree too, safety first, and if there is an obvious injury such as bruising or bleeding then yes, do the inspection now. But I'm sure the parks get guest complaints all the time of alleged 'injuries' on rides with no obvious signs of the injury and in that case, should they then stop the ride and inspect it every time that happens? Maybe it depends on the alleged injury, I don't know, or, does this even happen often enough- real or fake, to even cause a problem? What do you guys think? I'm sure they are many of you that have visited parks more frequently than I have so what is your take on this, have you seen such an incident before?

 

Working in this industry, yes, if someone has a complaint that seems to have merit (obvious harm, not just "It was scary!" type harm) then we will most definitely hold the attraction until we can investigate it further. Sometimes that involves walking it, sometimes that involves actually riding it. Hell, even if there is an odd sound on an attraction it will prompt us to hold & investigate.

 

The Big Thunder Mountain accident at Disneyland years ago was a failure of maintenance and training. The ride ops knew of an odd sound coming from the train whilst in motion and continued to load the train before the accident happened that killed someone and hurt a score of others. Safety is the utmost importance. All rides should give the illusion of being unsafe, but if it is unsafe for real reasons, then the park has failed its patrons and given them real risk, instead of a perceived one.

[Xmeister]

When I worked for Disney, we were always trained to look for "Unusual Conditions." If something doesn't look, sound, or smell right, or we get a report from guests about something unusual, we either stop the ride or at the very least stop loading the ride depending on the situation. This goes for all attractions I worked including those in Tomorrowland and Kilimanjaro Safaris. You never ignore something abnormal in a ride's operation.

 

Are we sure the Yelp report is credible?

[dylanreich]

When I worked for Disney, we were always trained to look for "Unusual Conditions." If something doesn't look, sound, or smell right, or we get a report from guests about something unusual, we either stop the ride or at the very least stop loading the ride depending on the situation. This goes for all attractions I worked including those in Tomorrowland and Kilimanjaro Safaris. You never ignore something abnormal in a ride's operation.

 

Are we sure the Yelp report is credible?

No, I don't think we are sure it's credible, but it did include pictures. And I think someone a couple pages back pointed out that it was suspicious that it was a new account, but an event like that might cause me to make a Yelp account to make a bad review myself.

[natatomic]

There is no reason to remove Ninja because of a freak accident, again, this could happen with ANY coaster with trees around it.

 

I think the interesting thing to see will be if the park gets nailed for 'bad tree maintenance' whether true or not since a tree related incident happened on Revolution recently. I could see officials going nuts over the tree issue.... just because they can, so get ready for more political ridiculousness, because this is California and stupid things happen here.

 

Stupid things happen in Florida too. When I worked at Expedition Everest, we had a guest who said their hand hit a piece of bamboo. We closed the ride down for a bit, and horticulture came in a trimmed up around the ride path. The next day, about 10% of all the bamboo was gone. Then a few days later, someone got off the ride saying there was a piece of bamboo in the track. We closed the ride, did and inspection, and yes, there was a piece of bamboo UNDER the track, but it was not in danger of hitting anyone or anything (though I do understand the fear of more bamboo falling). The next day, when I came in, we didn't open the ride for SEVEN HOURS. Why? Because they were busy doing this to the entire ride path (Kali River Rapids got the same treatment within the week):

[Tmcdllr]

That's a shame

[WFChris]

Kali's message got spread over to Expedition Everest

 

But seriously, I hope our Ninja hill doesn't get de-forested. It's one of the nicer parts of the park.

[paintballer]

They definitely need to check the health and quality of all the trees. I'm sure there's some kind of expert who knows when they're gonna be close to falling over. Remove the old, unhealthy ones and replace with new trees.

[Jew]

I am sure it won't be long before we hear the official cause of why the tree fell over from DOSH.

[DJeXeL]

Let the lawsuits begin....

[kailisun98]

I agree too, safety first, and if there is an obvious injury such as bruising or bleeding then yes, do the inspection now. But I'm sure the parks get guest complaints all the time of alleged 'injuries' on rides with no obvious signs of the injury and in that case, should they then stop the ride and inspect it every time that happens? Maybe it depends on the alleged injury, I don't know, or, does this even happen often enough- real or fake, to even cause a problem? What do you guys think? I'm sure they are many of you that have visited parks more frequently than I have so what is your take on this, have you seen such an incident before?

It's not safety first if there's a but.

If they get a report of something obstructing the course of the track, yes they should inspect it every time it happens. The thinking that an inspection shouldn't be made because there weren't any obvious signs of injury is a fallacy. Part of the point of the inspection is to prevent injuries from happening. The line of thinking that something should not get checked out because nothing serious has happened yet is exactly how this situation came to be.

 

EDIT: Again, I will use Disney and Universal (and Cedar Fair parks) as examples of parks that are safety-first and would have shut down the ride immediately. I don't think the large amount of people in the park and waiting on rides stops those parks from taking the safety-first approach (to address the idea that no one would get to ride if the park responded to these complaints).

I have to disagree. Space Mountain and Soaring were closed last year for a month after California safety inspectors found deficiencies in the rides.

[GigaG]

The park failed "to provide a safe and fit vehicle, so as to cause plaintiff to suffer injuries and damages," the lawsuit charges.

 

While I understand that there were severe injuries, why kind of vehicle should there be? Should riders be superglued into a giant bubble wrapped pod? I'm hoping that this lawsuit doesn't get too ridiculous. If it was the park's fault, he has every right to sue. If it was the park's fault, the park should pay for his expenses. However, I hope this guy's lawsuit isn't too much money. Plus, we don't know who is at fault.

[KBrylczyk]

Let the lawsuits begin....

 

'MURICA!

 

I'm curious about the Splash Mountain suit mentioned. "I got wet!" "Well, sir, that's the idea."

[Tmcdllr]

LOL, that's funny! Yep, would not surprise me at all.

 

"Unsafe ride vehicle"... oh brother.... like I said.... stupid California. Need I mention that the 'ride vehicle' was actually very safe in that it did not go crashing to the ground, but obviously that does not matter.

 

If nothing else and as a good gesture the park should pay for the medical bills, maybe give them a season pass or something, but that's it. Whether the park is found negligent or not, they should at least pay the medical bills imo.

 

Great, ok, where is the one that makes them now remove all trees near any ride.... should be coming soon.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Tmcdllr

[GigaG]

"Unsafe ride vehicle"... oh brother.... like I said.... stupid California. Need I mention that the 'ride vehicle' was actually very safe in that it did not go crashing to the ground, but obviously that does not matter.

 

If nothing else and as a good gesture the park should pay for the medical bills, maybe give them a season pass or something, but that's it. Whether the park is found negligent or not, they should at least pay the medical bills imo.

 

Great, ok, where is the one that makes them now remove all trees near any ride.... should be coming soon.

 

Why can't America have nice things!?

[Tmcdllr]

^Because it's full of dumb people!

[GigaG]

^Because it's full of dumb people!

 

No, just a few idiots who sue for crap. The reason that parks think Americans are made of butter and neuter their rides as such. Again, this lawsuit isn't frivolous (at least not until we hear more about it), but I hate how parks live in fear of mythical lawsuits for headbanging or intensity that will never come.

[jetsplumber]

LOL, that's funny! Yep, would not surprise me at all.

 

"Unsafe ride vehicle"... oh brother.... like I said.... stupid California. Need I mention that the 'ride vehicle' was actually very safe in that it did not go crashing to the ground, but obviously that does not matter.

 

If nothing else and as a good gesture the park should pay for the medical bills, maybe give them a season pass or something, but that's it. Whether the park is found negligent or not, they should at least pay the medical bills imo.

 

Great, ok, where is the one that makes them now remove all trees near any ride.... should be coming soon.

 

 

where are the wacko tree huggers to protect the trees? they will come out sooner or later

[cfc]

I never rush to judgment about whether or not a lawsuit is valid until I know more about the case--but this sounds pretty "slapped together."

[Tmcdllr]

I would agree with all three of you. And yeah, where are the tree huggers? Surely they would have popped up by now.

[dylanreich]

I have to disagree. Space Mountain and Soaring were closed last year for a month after California safety inspectors found deficiencies in the rides.

I don't think we are in disagreement because my point was regarding temporarily closing rides based off of rider complaints and injuries, not safety inspections; you're talking about the state safety inspections. The rides would have been closed at any park because of the findings of the safety inspectors, it wasn't a matter of the park deciding they wanted to play it safe, they had to (the law).

[Jew]

If they are just fishing for money, filing quick is not the way to go. The smart play is let questionable medical bills rack up (all lawyers have their guys that run up the bills for them) before filing. This suit is clearly slapped together as quick as can be to try and pressure SFMM into settling before discovery opens up all their dirty secrets.

[DJeXeL]

^Agreed.

 

If nothing else and as a good gesture the park should pay for the medical bills, maybe give them a season pass or something, but that's it. Whether the park is found negligent or not, they should at least pay the medical bills imo.

 

I am in agreement that SFMM should pay their medical bills as an act of good faith, but nothing more.