Icon Park - Drop Tower Accident 24/03/2022
- Thread starter Coasterfreck
- Start date
Nicky Borrill
Strata Poster
Can I just point out that it seems / is being reported that the young lad was a promising athlete, who presumably trained hard to achieve the shoulder and chest width he had... I think he was on the trip with his football team.
It isn't just 'unhealthy fat people' who they need to make allowances for!
Think it's worth keeping that in mind so that we can be respectful to the victim and his family.
Ultimately, if the ride hardware indicates somebody is safe to ride, they should absolutely be safe to ride... It's that simple.
It isn't just 'unhealthy fat people' who they need to make allowances for!
Think it's worth keeping that in mind so that we can be respectful to the victim and his family.
Ultimately, if the ride hardware indicates somebody is safe to ride, they should absolutely be safe to ride... It's that simple.
Agreed.
^ @Nicky Borrill Presumably ride hardware will (generally) assume that the restraint has been reasonably secured manually.
You could put a tiny child on a B&M hyper/looper with the loosest possible restraint (the first ‘green light click’) - of course, this would be a terrible idea. The restraint needs to be manually checked as being reasonably secure, at the very least as a fail safe.
Otherwise, why have ride ops check restraints at all (except for maybe expediency).
So I think it’s fair that a ride is designed to have some level of manual oversight, but I also agree with the general principle that a ride should be designed so that even the very loosest of acceptable restraints is reasonably secure/safe.
You could put a tiny child on a B&M hyper/looper with the loosest possible restraint (the first ‘green light click’) - of course, this would be a terrible idea. The restraint needs to be manually checked as being reasonably secure, at the very least as a fail safe.
Otherwise, why have ride ops check restraints at all (except for maybe expediency).
So I think it’s fair that a ride is designed to have some level of manual oversight, but I also agree with the general principle that a ride should be designed so that even the very loosest of acceptable restraints is reasonably secure/safe.
I dont think we actually disagree here Rob. The only difference in opinion *I believe* is you say ALL sizes, I say a defined range. Reading the thread back to be fair maybe I didn't communicate my frame of reference very well. When talking I had in mind making the maximum larger than it commonly is now, which I am sure any reasonable person would understand has to push up the minimum. If we could engineering safe systems to accommodate everything from a 1.2m 40kg person up to a 2m 300kg person. They would! I don't think we are really saying different things here over all.
Not to my knowledge. I can't imagine how you would even engineer such a system to be frank. Not one that is safety critical anyway!
I think the discussion here about rider sizes is missing the point.
The manufacturer designs the ride to accommodate a certain specification of rider (min/max height, weight, type of rider e.g. disabilities/pregnant/health conditions, age etc). Once the specifications are determined then they base the design of the restraint system and text of the ride operation/maintenance manuals around those specifications. There will be safety systems built in to the ride system which usually have a failsafe written into the ride operation manual of 1. the ride operators actually follow the manual ensuring the persons riding meet the requirements to ride and 2. redundant human verification that harnesses are secured sufficiently. The exact wording may vary for each ride installation even between identical ride systems at different parks (often because of insurance requirements, see some parks which have rides fitted with additional seatbelts which are not on idential models at other parks).
The investigation will look at:
1. Was there an issue with the design of the ride system or operating manuals, do any modifications need to be made for safe operation
2. Was there an issue with the maintenance of the ride system
3. Was there an issue with the operation of the ride system
4. Were there any other external factors (management culture etc.)
The accident on the S&S El Loco coaster is a good example. The ride manual written by S&S said that the riders needed to have a minimum of one functioning hand to ride but mentioned nothing about leg amputations. The ride operators allowed a double amputee to ride as there was nothing in the manual to say that they could not so assumed that it would be fine. After the accident and investigation the operating manuals were updated to say that people with leg amputations could not ride. They also mandated an alteration to the sensors on the restraints on that ride (and also other models of the same ride type) to reduce the minimum gap permitted before the system would give a green light.
The Smiler accident is another good example. Whilst the investigation concluded that human errors were made and also identified issues with the ride operation and maintenance the main blame and responsibility was ultimately levelled at Alton Towers and their management culture was heavily criticised in the report.
Anyway it is not a good thing to happen especially on a brand new ride. Hopefully some lessons will be learnt in the industry.
The manufacturer designs the ride to accommodate a certain specification of rider (min/max height, weight, type of rider e.g. disabilities/pregnant/health conditions, age etc). Once the specifications are determined then they base the design of the restraint system and text of the ride operation/maintenance manuals around those specifications. There will be safety systems built in to the ride system which usually have a failsafe written into the ride operation manual of 1. the ride operators actually follow the manual ensuring the persons riding meet the requirements to ride and 2. redundant human verification that harnesses are secured sufficiently. The exact wording may vary for each ride installation even between identical ride systems at different parks (often because of insurance requirements, see some parks which have rides fitted with additional seatbelts which are not on idential models at other parks).
The investigation will look at:
1. Was there an issue with the design of the ride system or operating manuals, do any modifications need to be made for safe operation
2. Was there an issue with the maintenance of the ride system
3. Was there an issue with the operation of the ride system
4. Were there any other external factors (management culture etc.)
The accident on the S&S El Loco coaster is a good example. The ride manual written by S&S said that the riders needed to have a minimum of one functioning hand to ride but mentioned nothing about leg amputations. The ride operators allowed a double amputee to ride as there was nothing in the manual to say that they could not so assumed that it would be fine. After the accident and investigation the operating manuals were updated to say that people with leg amputations could not ride. They also mandated an alteration to the sensors on the restraints on that ride (and also other models of the same ride type) to reduce the minimum gap permitted before the system would give a green light.
The Smiler accident is another good example. Whilst the investigation concluded that human errors were made and also identified issues with the ride operation and maintenance the main blame and responsibility was ultimately levelled at Alton Towers and their management culture was heavily criticised in the report.
Anyway it is not a good thing to happen especially on a brand new ride. Hopefully some lessons will be learnt in the industry.
Nicky Borrill
Strata Poster
That’s why the height check exists… That IS the ‘fair’ amount of manual oversight.
Measuring people’s weight and the circumference of certain body parts in not reasonable. Hence why the restraint’s generally handle that themselves.
Munchy Road Hippopotamus
Mega Poster
34 lbs over the prescribed weight limit.
chainedbanana
Hyper Poster
So Sad - this is what I suspected - the restraint didn't open or break, it was just that it closed to a far to 'open' position for to rider. The mechinical 'error' if you were was that the dispatch light indicated that it was closed, or 'ok' to proceed!
That along with human error of it not being checked, one has to wonder what the training was? just to trust the green light or do manual checks!
The tilting action probably distributed his weight awkwardly - with far too much of a gap and the G-forces of the break made him slip out! - Very tragic!
That along with human error of it not being checked, one has to wonder what the training was? just to trust the green light or do manual checks!
The tilting action probably distributed his weight awkwardly - with far too much of a gap and the G-forces of the break made him slip out! - Very tragic!
Qualifier to What I Know About Safety Design
I was a high ropes director/instructor in a previous life - climbing has a lot of similarities in terms of inherent risk to amusement ride design, specific to three factors:
I know it sounds morbid and super black and white, but - it is. A fundamental system flaw or mistraining of staff puts unknowing victims at very specific risk. To give you a sense of how I put this practice in the climbing world:
I have a fair share of nerve-wracking stories for how climbing sessions went south - climbers "double looped" and hanging on elements, overweight zipliners stuck in the middle of a 700 ft. zipline over a canyon, etc. But, these climbers were never in inherent danger, thanks in part to a very specific, exacting climbing regiment and inherent double and triple redundant safety systems that still kept them secure and safe, even if they're caught sideways.
I say all this to qualify my general observation that the ride manufacturer (Funtime), Owner Operator of the ride, and Ride Staff are all to blame for this, as there were multiple, deliberate decisions of hardware design and human error that got us here.
To be honest, this whole scenario has weighed pretty heavily on me the last few days - having worked in a profession that requires exact and specific training and safety to be successful, you have to live, breath, sleep this type of safety. There's a reason riding an amusement park attraction is safer than driving a car - and it's the safety design, careful training, and dedicated staff that get it done. This entire scenario violates all of those core tenets, and kills a completely trusting, unsuspecting victim.
I was a high ropes director/instructor in a previous life - climbing has a lot of similarities in terms of inherent risk to amusement ride design, specific to three factors:
- Hardware is designed to keep the participant safe and secure, with inherent duplicity and fail-safe to minimize risk to the greatest extent possible.
- Staff/Operators are trained to exceed minimum knowledge and requirements for operating hardware. "Exceedence" of minimum requirements falls to the owner/sitehost to define.
- Failure to observe the previous two points results in certain and literal death.
I know it sounds morbid and super black and white, but - it is. A fundamental system flaw or mistraining of staff puts unknowing victims at very specific risk. To give you a sense of how I put this practice in the climbing world:
- Certification of climbing ropes courses in the state of California required annual inspect of climbing elements, random sampling of hardware, and some general minimum climbing certifications for "rope leads" who would oversee climbing sessions.
- In practice - we submitted ourselves to 6 month inspection intervals, with additional climbing element inspection from a separate, independent consultant on a 2-month basis. All rope leads had climbing certifications, alongside mandatory 2 week, 30-hour climbing training for all climbing staff.
- Hardware specifications dictated 1,000 climbing hours allowed on rope, ~5,000 climbing hours allowed on carabiner and climbing hardware, indefinite length on climbing grips/other elements.
- In Practice: All ropes and carabiner/hardware retired at 500 climbing hours. Climbing grips/other elements retired on 1-year intervals.
I have a fair share of nerve-wracking stories for how climbing sessions went south - climbers "double looped" and hanging on elements, overweight zipliners stuck in the middle of a 700 ft. zipline over a canyon, etc. But, these climbers were never in inherent danger, thanks in part to a very specific, exacting climbing regiment and inherent double and triple redundant safety systems that still kept them secure and safe, even if they're caught sideways.
I say all this to qualify my general observation that the ride manufacturer (Funtime), Owner Operator of the ride, and Ride Staff are all to blame for this, as there were multiple, deliberate decisions of hardware design and human error that got us here.
- Having a seat-belt on an OTSR drop tower would give easy, redundant safety backup for any mishap with the OTSR - this is why we've seen seatbelts so widely deployed on drop towers, and even retrofitted into older, OTSR-only designs (e.g. Arrows). The fact that a drop tower didn't have a safety belt blows my mind.
- I'm trying not to make a generalizing assumption before all facts come out, but the latest intel that the OTSR was set out widely (while still cleared by the computer system as closed/ready for dispatch) boils my blood - that indicates a ride staff who did not go through a proper safety check before dispatch. Again back to climbing, to not double/triple check a climbing harness before going on a climb leaves so many elements to chance, especially when it can be virtually eliminated by simple, rudimentary training and enforcement.
- If a weight limit exists in a manual, but was never communicated to the ride owner/operator and/or if the ride owner/operator failed to read the entire manual/train staff to any exacting specifications - shame on the entire operation. I mentioned up top - I too have had scenarios play out where zipliners were both under and over target weights. While we were lucky that this doesn't inherently put the zipliner at danger - it literally translates to not being able to make it entirely across the zipline; even a shred of mortal harm that could exist should be absolutely incorporated into training/made aware to the ride operator.
To be honest, this whole scenario has weighed pretty heavily on me the last few days - having worked in a profession that requires exact and specific training and safety to be successful, you have to live, breath, sleep this type of safety. There's a reason riding an amusement park attraction is safer than driving a car - and it's the safety design, careful training, and dedicated staff that get it done. This entire scenario violates all of those core tenets, and kills a completely trusting, unsuspecting victim.
UP87
Mega Poster
The safety restraints in drop towers are redundant: there are two separate hydraulic cylinders. If the restraints are closed far enough they basically touch the seat piece between your legs so I think it's completely understandable that a seat belt is not required at that point. But there should be no green light for a restraint that's not even close to touching the seat. I mean... you could add big boy seats that include an additional seatbelt and can signal a restraint locked at that point. But open this far... A skinny person could get out of there without any force or trying too hard. And with force...
With everything we know by now it looks like a human error between the ride designer (if the restrain checks signal that the restraint is closed far enough at this point), the owner (if no system for restraint checks was present and / or staff wasn't trained appropriately) and definitely the ride op (for not checking the restraints correctly and / or not raising any concerns).
CrashCoaster
CF Legend
^This incident kind of reminds me of El Loco incident, where it was deemed that the green light of the restraints are too high so they repositioned the sensors on all El Loco coasters that use this newer lapbar system so that the minimum locking position allowed was reduced. I expect it will be the same case with this ride.
Good clarifier that there is already redundancy built in. Ultimately wanted to stress the point on how easy an added redundancy seatbelts can be.The safety restraints in drop towers are redundant: there are two separate hydraulic cylinders. If the restraints are closed far enough they basically touch the seat piece between your legs so I think it's completely understandable that a seat belt is not required at that point. But there should be no green light for a restraint that's not even close to touching the seat. I mean... you could add big boy seats that include an additional seatbelt and can signal a restraint locked at that point. But open this far... A skinny person could get out of there without any force or trying too hard. And with force...
With everything we know by now it looks like a human error between the ride designer (if the restrain checks signal that the restraint is closed far enough at this point), the owner (if no system for restraint checks was present and / or staff wasn't trained appropriately) and definitely the ride op (for not checking the restraints correctly and / or not raising any concerns).
Nicky Borrill
Strata Poster
Despite what I’ve said earlier in this thread, having seen the manual and training records, I do think some of the blame will be found to lie with the ops / hosts too, sadly.
There ‘is’ a set weight limit. Which is a strange thing when you think about it. How many other rides out there have a set weight limit with no way to determine a guest’s weight aside from weighing them!!! The weight limit appears to be defined by the EN-13814-1 standard, which seems to dictate the minimum load bearing capacity that every amusement ride should be designed and manufactured for... But I am not paying £60 to read it in detail. If this is the case, does it mean that anybody over 130kg should not be riding any ride, anywhere in the world?
I know when I’ve operated rides, I was never ever taught in training that rides had set weight limits, just that a rider needs to fit into the seat and restraint needs to lock securely. How is an op / host supposed to know somebody's weight without weighing them? Sure you can guess, but height makes a huge difference, bigger difference than some people seem to think. (When I tell people my weight they often respond with 'no chance, I weigh xx, there's no way you way xx more' and I have to point out that I'm 6 inches taller, huge difference.) Then there's muscle density etc etc.
Having said that, I think I underestimated just how large this young man was. The weight limit is 20 stone 7lb, even though I’m massive, I’m not that heavy. If reports of him being 2 stone over the weight limit are true, that’d make him 22 and a half stone!!! And visibly an extraordinarily large person to be riding an attraction like this!
I dunno, I'm just rambling now. If any of this is found to be owner / operator error, because the guest 'weighed' too much. Could that have ramifications for the entire industry? Could there be a need to pay closer attention to a guests weight, scales in loading areas to double check? If not, I don't see how any op / host could ever be sure.
Anyway, some exerts from the manual.
There ‘is’ a set weight limit. Which is a strange thing when you think about it. How many other rides out there have a set weight limit with no way to determine a guest’s weight aside from weighing them!!! The weight limit appears to be defined by the EN-13814-1 standard, which seems to dictate the minimum load bearing capacity that every amusement ride should be designed and manufactured for... But I am not paying £60 to read it in detail. If this is the case, does it mean that anybody over 130kg should not be riding any ride, anywhere in the world?
I know when I’ve operated rides, I was never ever taught in training that rides had set weight limits, just that a rider needs to fit into the seat and restraint needs to lock securely. How is an op / host supposed to know somebody's weight without weighing them? Sure you can guess, but height makes a huge difference, bigger difference than some people seem to think. (When I tell people my weight they often respond with 'no chance, I weigh xx, there's no way you way xx more' and I have to point out that I'm 6 inches taller, huge difference.) Then there's muscle density etc etc.
Having said that, I think I underestimated just how large this young man was. The weight limit is 20 stone 7lb, even though I’m massive, I’m not that heavy. If reports of him being 2 stone over the weight limit are true, that’d make him 22 and a half stone!!! And visibly an extraordinarily large person to be riding an attraction like this!
I dunno, I'm just rambling now. If any of this is found to be owner / operator error, because the guest 'weighed' too much. Could that have ramifications for the entire industry? Could there be a need to pay closer attention to a guests weight, scales in loading areas to double check? If not, I don't see how any op / host could ever be sure.
Anyway, some exerts from the manual.
Last edited:
Munchy Road Hippopotamus
Mega Poster
It certainly appears that size is the issue rather than an arbitrary weight amount. There are pictures that appear to show the restraint was not pulled down very far. We've all sat in rides and seen people have their restraints forced down for that "click" or had it done to ourself. People with large chests often struggle with restraints.
Did the restraint fail or did he slip out of space? If the latter then there is much more emphasis on the ride ops either not checking properly or not being trained to check properly.
Did the restraint fail or did he slip out of space? If the latter then there is much more emphasis on the ride ops either not checking properly or not being trained to check properly.
Nicky Borrill
Strata Poster
I deliberately paid very close attention to my Gerstlauer restraints this week. I am on the edge of not being able to fit. The ops sometimes have to give it that last little push, and then check the green light. Despite this, there is only around 2 to 3 inches of space between the bottom of the restraint and the groin guard that sticks up out of the middle of the seat. I can only just fit an open palm between them!!!
It's been stated that when the ops / hosts checked, the green light indicated a locked restraint.
These restraints have a light that indicates (or is supposed to indicate) when a restraint is closed enough.
It's also worth mentioning that the ride owners have stated that 'The ride will not ascend if the restraints are not locked properly.'
The question was, can or should the ops be able to rely on that system to decide if a rider can ride or not. To the letter, the manual indicates that they can't, because there is also a weight limit.
Interestingly (as somebody who struggles with their chest size on rides) it doesn't seem to indicate that there is a limit on chest size, other than the standard 'can they fit within the contours of the seat and bracket (sic - restraint?)' line.
Edited to add:
I've found that report that showed video of investigators measuring 'the gap' at the point at which the restraint indicates it's locked.
Interestingly, and worryingly, it contains a statement from the ride owners claiming that there is no maximum height or weight limit, despite what I've found in the manual!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited again to avoid double posting....
There is also the possibility of a maintenance issue... I don't think this has been mentioned at all yet.
Every seat has to be checked with a device called a 'restraint test unit' every 15 days to make sure that in the closed / locked status the restraint is still within safe parameters...
If the images depict an accurate representation of that test cylinder and the seats, it looks as though the restraint would need to be closed much more than what we saw on the night to pass this test!!!
Last edited:
TPoseOnTantrum
Giga Poster
Hansa Park has added seatsbelts to the Highlander tower in response to the incident; https://www.parkerlebnis.de/hansa-park-highlander-sicherheitsbuegel-gurte_137871.html
