KS - Caleb Schwab, 10, dies on 17-story Schlitterbahn waterpark slide, Aug 2016

[KaaBoom]

Re the sign: does anyone else think that 11 inches in the landing area is too shallow?

Personally I think there is so little water in this ride, that it shouldn’t even be called a “water” ride. When I hear water ride, I think of people floating along in an inner tube in three feet of water. Not being shot along by a jet spray, in one inch of water.

 

[KaaBoom]

There have actually been a few deaths at Disneyland that were Disney's fault (Big Thunder, Columbia, Roger Rabbit, if anyone wants to Google to read about them.) But for being open 60 years, their safety isn't too awful. A few people have lost fingers/toes on rides but some of those could be partly the person/partly Disney to blame.

You have to remember that Disneyland has tens of millions of visitors a year. I can’t find any attendance numbers for Schlitterbahn, but I’m pretty sure it’s a fraction of that. Then you have Tokyo Disneyland with over 17 million visitors a year, and no deaths in 25 years. It is possible to run a profitable amusement park without killing guests.

 

[AmyPond]

You have to remember that Disneyland has tens of millions of visitors a year. I can’t find any attendance numbers for Schlitterbahn, but I’m pretty sure it’s a fraction of that. Then you have Tokyo Disneyland with over 17 million visitors a year, and no deaths in 25 years. It is possible to run a profitable amusement park without killing guests.

Yeah...that's basically what I was saying in my previous posts in this thread. Schlitterbahn is only open a few months out of the year. They are obviously nowhere near Disneyland attendance numbers. So for 60 years and millions of visitors....Disneyland is doing well. (Though they ARE to blame for a few deaths.)

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

i would never go skydiving and jump out of a plane in fear the parachute did not open, so i simply do not put myself in that position,

now lets say next week i change my mind, i jump out of the plane, my parachute does not open, i slam into the ground and i survive but im paralized from the waist down.....im not going to blame the company who flew the plane, and im not going to blame the maker of the parachute, im going to blame myself for my own actions and the choice i made to jump.....i was the one who put myself in that position.....people need to stop blaming everybody else for their own choices and actions

[Snip]

if you buy a brand new car and maintain it by the book, take it in for service once a week, there is still the possibility of it breaking down, same goes for amusement rides.....you can not eliminate the unknown 100%.....its impossible,

Snipped for focus

So if the parachute manufacturer decided to cut costs by using cheaper parts with a higher failure rate, the failure of the chute to open is your fault and the manufacturer bears no responsibility?

The Ford Pinto fires were the fault of the drivers? Not Ford and Lee Iacocca, who decided that the cost savings from a cheaper, less safe fuel system design was greater than costs the company would pay out due to failures of the system?

The two men who designed this ride were not engineers, had no formal training at all, used trial and error instead of computer modeling, and had no business building a ride like this.


ETA

An expert interviewed by The Kansas City Star said the use of netting over the slide and the uncontrolled nature of the boats-they weren't attached to a rail like a roller coaster-especially need to be scrutinized.
Mark Hanlon, a licensed mechanical engineer who was a certified inspector of amusement attractions in California, said that while the Verruckt resembled a roller coaster ride, it did not have similar safety precautions, such as having a vehicle tied to a rail line.
"Roller coasters, they're fully captured," Hanlon said. "They can't go vertical, they can't go sideways, they can't go down."

...

Netting all along the slide over the riders is intended to keep them from falling off the slide. It's propped up every few feet by what appears to be metal semi-circular poles.
But the netting also drew concern from Hanlon. He said it presents risks to riders if they come into contact with it at high speeds.
"It will literally pull someone's arm right off," Hanlon said.


http://broadstripe.net/news/read/ca...stions_arise_about_design_safety_of_verru-tca

ETA more

Ken Martin, a Richmond, Va.-based amusement park safety consultant, questioned whether the straps were appropriate, suggesting a more solid restraint system that fits over the body — similar to those used in roller coasters — may have been better.

...

“I think … they figured since stuff was flying out, we better do something to keep people from flying out,” said Martin, who hasn’t seen or tested the ride. “I think we have a serious issue with the restraint system. Period.”

http://m.cjonline.com/news/2016-08-...ate-law-company-requested-inspection-instead#

ETA yet more


Jon Rust, a professor of textile engineering at North Carolina State University, said the material used on the straps, commonly called hook and loop, isn’t designed to keep a person in the seat. It also can degrade with use.

http://wtop.com/national/2016/08/waterslide-complaints-surface-after-kansas-boy-dies-on-ride/

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[neesaki]

Personally I think there is so little water in this ride, that it shouldn’t even be called a “water” ride. When I hear water ride, I think of people floating along in an inner tube in three feet of water. Not being shot along by a jet spray, in one inch of water.

I so agree, this is basically a roller coaster ride, but without the safety measures of having the car / raft attached to rails like all roller coasters do. It's an abomination this ride ever made it past the planning stages and opened at all. The state of Kansas needs a serious reality check in their amusement park safety regulations. Jmo

 

[JohnPaul]

The two men who designed this ride were not engineers, had no formal training at all, used trial and error instead of computer modeling, and had no business building a ride like this.

exactly....so why put yourself in a situation that you might feel to be unsafe?

is anybody forcing people to jump on this ride?

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

exactly....so why put yourself in a situation that you might feel to be unsafe?

is anybody forcing people to jump on this ride?

It took a lot of digging to find the academic credentials (or lack thereof) of the builders/designers. It's a tad disingenuous to suggest the public must do a full background check of the designers of every product they use.


ETA Should the people who bought Ford Pintos have been expected to personally vet every part in the car, as well as the background of the engineers, Ford management, and manufacturing process?



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[gregjrichards]

It would be great if they saw sense and replaced the Verruckt with a safety tested log flume ride. I can't imagine being Mr & Mrs Schwab & having to drive past the monstrosity that killed their son regularly.

 

[jjenny]

I so agree, this is basically a roller coaster ride, but without the safety measures of having the car / raft attached to rails like all roller coasters do. It's an abomination this ride ever made it past the planning stages and opened at all. The state of Kansas needs a serious reality check in their amusement park safety regulations. Jmo

They were also using velcro type restraints. From what has been reported, these restraints have failed a number of times before, but adults were able to hold themselves inside the boat. Obviously 10 year old wasn't able to. So he flew into the net. Net prevented him from flying off the ride, but caused him to become what has been described as "decapitated." This whole thing sounds like it was an accident waiting to happen.

 

[Tssiemer]

I. Am. Soooooo. Sick. Of the reports that say "they passed inspection", "it was safe", blah blah blah. IT DOESN'T MATTER A FLYING ****!!!! A little boy is dead!! Tear that thing down and stop perpetuating this safety culture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MzOpinion8d]

<modsnip>

a "design flaw" would cause an accident immediately, not 2 years later

This slide DID show a design flaw immediately, when rafts went flying off of it.

They placed a net over the slide to prevent the rafts from flying off. But did nothing to prevent injury of riders if the rider came in to contact with the net, which is what happened here.

And most likely the reason the rider came in contact with the net is because the raft came off the slide.

And we have arrived full circle back to the original design flaw, only this time there's a dead child because of it.

 

[LemonCloud]

i think the goal of any park owner would be to run a safe well maintained amusement park, do you really think a park owner would open the place thinking "i hope we have an accident and somebody gets injured today.....or better yet a death" :thinking:

that would be like a restaurant owner hoping one of his customers gets food poisoning, even if there is no lawsuit against them its bad publicity,

but here is the harsh reality.....amusement park accidents have happened in the past, they are happening in the present, and they will continue to happen in the future, there is no way to prevent accidents, that's why they are called "accidents"

some fault must be placed on the customer for putting themselves in that position to begin with, you must assume some kind of risk, in this case it was a child who may not realize the risks involved and therefore the fault is on the parents,

if im a park owner i am definitely putting a disclaimer on your ticket stub saying "you are entering this park at your own risk, you are riding the rides at your own risk, and we will not be responsible for any injury for any reason whatsoever" (but in more legal terms)....if you don't like it do not enter

i would never go skydiving and jump out of a plane in fear the parachute did not open, so i simply do not put myself in that position,

now lets say next week i change my mind, i jump out of the plane, my parachute does not open, i slam into the ground and i survive but im paralized from the waist down.....im not going to blame the company who flew the plane, and im not going to blame the maker of the parachute, im going to blame myself for my own actions and the choice i made to jump.....i was the one who put myself in that position.....people need to stop blaming everybody else for their own choices and actions

aside from what most people think it is actually very difficult to run a safe amusement park, aside from the rides, there is a risk of injury whenever you crowd that many people into a relatively small area,

if you buy a brand new car and maintain it by the book, take it in for service once a week, there is still the possibility of it breaking down, same goes for amusement rides.....you can not eliminate the unknown 100%.....its impossible,

When I walk into an amusement park I FULLY EXPECT and assume that every ride has been inspected on a daily basis and each ride is built to standards re: safety!!!! Nobody walks into an amusement park assuming that something could go wrong on any of the rides and that it's their fault for taking a "risk". But that's just my opinion.

 

[Hatfield]

exactly....so why put yourself in a situation that you might feel to be unsafe?

is anybody forcing people to jump on this ride?

Respectfully I totally disagree with that analysis in this case. People that attend amusement parks are assuming the rides are generally safe so long as the riders follow the rules for the ride.

When they board a ride they have a reasonable expectation that they will not be thrown to their death or slammed into the netting to rip someones head off.

For other daredevil type sports like climbing mount Everest or base jumping then yea someone should not participate if they dont want to risk it. But for any advertised amusement park ride there is a valid expectation that you should not be injured or killed unless you do something against the rules like unfastening your harness and standing up or something crazy like that. All indications so far is the boy was just trying to ride the ride like anyone else.

This boy and his parents had every reason to expect he would be safe when boarding the ride and following the instructions.

It is pretty obvious to me that the boys family will be able to prove that there was severe negligence with the ride's owners, operators, and manufacturers . They may be able to prove the rides operators were allowing unsafe practices by allowing people to board under the recommended weight restrictions and they may also be able to prove that the design of the ride itself was flawed from the start.
Since the owners employ the operators then they become culpable as well to an extent.

Cases like these that end in a judgement for the family usually develop percentages of fault which are divied out to the defendant parties in a lawsuit if multiple defendents are named.

It doesn't bring the boy back but its the only recourse the family has left to try to prevent another tragedy with this particular ride.

 

[IBsleuthin]

i dont see anything wrong with that defense, his past convictions have nothing to do with the present charge against him, and if the equipment malfunctioned then maybe he was not over the legal limit to drive, and should not be convicted because he did not commit a crime.....would you like to be convicted of a crime you did not commit?

(Big sigh) You conveniently left off the last part of my statement...that is why in my state we also draw a BLOOD SAMPLE. Rock solid. Can't get loose from that. He was driving drunk, he DID commit a crime and killed someone.

Trying to get off because of a technicality as I already clearly explained, is what is wrong with the 'system'. In my humble opinion it ranks right there with Improper Service of Process which is just another lame @$$ piece of the 'justice' system.

I don't drink and even if I did I wouldn't drink and drive. Problem solved.

 

[IBsleuthin]

Respectfully I totally disagree with that analysis in this case. People that attend amusement parks are assuming the rides are generally safe so long as the riders follow the rules for the ride.

When they board a ride they have a reasonable expectation that they will not be thrown to their death or slammed into the netting to rip someones head off.

For other daredevil type sports like climbing mount Everest or base jumping then yea someone should not participate if they dont want to risk it. But for any advertised amusement park ride there is a valid expectation that you should not be injured or killed unless you do something against the rules like unfastening your harness and standing up or something crazy like that. All indications so far is the boy was just trying to ride the ride like anyone else.

This boy and his parents had every reason to expect he would be safe when boarding the ride and following the instructions.

It is pretty obvious to me that the boys family will be able to prove that there was severe negligence with the ride's owners, operators, and manufacturers . They may be able to prove the rides operators were allowing unsafe practices by allowing people to board under the recommended weight restrictions and they may also be able to prove that the design of the ride itself was flawed from the start.
Since the owners employ the operators then they become culpable as well to an extent.

Cases like these that end in a judgement for the family usually develop percentages of fault which are divied out to the defendant parties in a lawsuit if multiple defendents are named.

It doesn't bring the boy back but its the only recourse the family has left to try to prevent another tragedy with this particular ride.

BBM

AMEN!!! I think the prosecuting attorneys in this case will likely have that tattooed on their forearms before this is all over. I LOVE THAT PHRASE!!!

 

[IBsleuthin]

Respectfully I totally disagree with that analysis in this case. People that attend amusement parks are assuming the rides are generally safe so long as the riders follow the rules for the ride.

When they board a ride they have a reasonable expectation that they will not be thrown to their death or slammed into the netting to rip someones head off.

For other daredevil type sports like climbing mount Everest or base jumping then yea someone should not participate if they dont want to risk it. But for any advertised amusement park ride there is a valid expectation that you should not be injured or killed unless you do something against the rules like unfastening your harness and standing up or something crazy like that. All indications so far is the boy was just trying to ride the ride like anyone else.

This boy and his parents had every reason to expect he would be safe when boarding the ride and following the instructions.

It is pretty obvious to me that the boys family will be able to prove that there was severe negligence with the ride's owners, operators, and manufacturers . They may be able to prove the rides operators were allowing unsafe practices by allowing people to board under the recommended weight restrictions and they may also be able to prove that the design of the ride itself was flawed from the start.
Since the owners employ the operators then they become culpable as well to an extent.

Cases like these that end in a judgement for the family usually develop percentages of fault which are divied out to the defendant parties in a lawsuit if multiple defendents are named.

It doesn't bring the boy back but its the only recourse the family has left to try to prevent another tragedy with this particular ride.

BBM

I really like this response so much I quoted it twice.

Nearly every single piece of law on the books that concerns traffic, safety, fire that sort of thing is written in the blood of someone who has been mangled or died as a result of someone else's negligence.

I have learned that it is ONLY through legislation that we can truly hold people to the task of making things safe. Left to their own devices they just don't do it.

 

[AmyPond]

When I walk into an amusement park I FULLY EXPECT and assume that every ride has been inspected on a daily basis and each ride is built to standards re: safety!!!! Nobody walks into an amusement park assuming that something could go wrong on any of the rides and that it's their fault for taking a "risk". But that's just my opinion.

Respectfully I totally disagree with that analysis in this case. People that attend amusement parks are assuming the rides are generally safe so long as the riders follow the rules for the ride.

When they board a ride they have a reasonable expectation that they will not be thrown to their death or slammed into the netting to rip someones head off.

For other daredevil type sports like climbing mount Everest or base jumping then yea someone should not participate if they dont want to risk it. But for any advertised amusement park ride there is a valid expectation that you should not be injured or killed unless you do something against the rules like unfastening your harness and standing up or something crazy like that. All indications so far is the boy was just trying to ride the ride like anyone else.

This boy and his parents had every reason to expect he would be safe when boarding the ride and following the instructions.

It is pretty obvious to me that the boys family will be able to prove that there was severe negligence with the ride's owners, operators, and manufacturers . They may be able to prove the rides operators were allowing unsafe practices by allowing people to board under the recommended weight restrictions and they may also be able to prove that the design of the ride itself was flawed from the start.
Since the owners employ the operators then they become culpable as well to an extent.

Cases like these that end in a judgement for the family usually develop percentages of fault which are divied out to the defendant parties in a lawsuit if multiple defendents are named.

It doesn't bring the boy back but its the only recourse the family has left to try to prevent another tragedy with this particular ride.

I agree so much with the above. Reasonable expectation is the key phrase.

I think that even if a ride has been inspected and is up to code and has been running fine for years....yes, there could be some sort of malfunction that could cause injury. But chances are quite slim. So perhaps there is always some risk involved with theme park rides. Just like there's risk involved with every day activities. But what happened in this case clearly was not some sort of 1 in a million malfunction. Not based on how the ride was built and tested. Not based on what happened ("safety" netting causing decapitation.) There are just so many things bad about this ride from start to finish.

 

[IBsleuthin]

<modsnip>

a "design flaw" would cause an accident immediately, not 2 years later

Not that I'm picking on you, (I'm not) you are just bringing up points here that I feel compelled to comment on.

I understand what you are meaning here however I completely disagree.

A design flaw may only reveal itself under the right circumstances. Perhaps in the beginning they were more strict about the height and weight, had different people running the ride, then there are these:

1). Raft inflation, possible air leaks and wear on the surface of the rafts themselves.
2). Wear of the slide base surface itself which is absolutely a physics fact in the speed ect of the rafts.
3). Weather, sun, humidity and wind having an effect on the water evaporation and lift of the rafts.
4). It's been said that the scales were allegedly not working properly that day, PERHAPS on this particular day, just the 'right', (wrong) combination of weight/body type was loaded in the raft.

The list could go on forever.

Design flaw can encompass so many things.

 

[IBsleuthin]

At the top gate in one of the videos I watched, as it opens there is a camera there mounted right on the gate. If you were seated in the raft you would be staring right at it while looking ahead.

That got me to thinking that there are probably several other cameras, as a matter of fact if I was the betting kind, I'd BET on the idea that there are other cameras mounted on this ride.

I haven't seen this brought up yet. Ideas?

 

[PeggyAnnMcKay]

At the top gate in one of the videos I watched, as it opens there is a camera there mounted right on the gate. If you were seated in the raft you would be staring right at it while looking ahead.

That got me to thinking that there are probably several other cameras, as a matter of fact if I was the betting kind, I'd BET on the idea that there are other cameras mounted on this ride.

I haven't seen this brought up yet. Ideas?

Interesting line of thought. So are you thinking camera's mounted along the track or other supports to record the actual ride? Or cameras mounted on the rafts?