I don’t see your average maintenance man making this adjustment of his own accord, because what would he care who can or cannot ride? At the same time, it probably was a maintenance man who made the adjustment, but not without someone at at least management level knowing about it and requesting the change be made. The maintenance worker (in my hypothetical recreation) was probably just doing as he was told (either ignorantly or by some level of “force” by his boss). But how ANYONE thought adjusting a key safety component of the only restraint system on the ride without extensive testing and without the manufacturer’s explicit consent is just…mind blowing.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Death at Icon Park accident
- Thread starter mergatroid
- Start date
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
Anything that needs to be replaced can be adjusted. Sensors fail and need to be replaced. The problem with this was it wasn't an accidental refit. It was done on purpose with fatal consequences.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Absolutely not an accidental refit. The adjustment was too easy to make by anyone with an allen key.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
You can sabotage anything if you want.
some other guy
Well-Known Member
it would be pretty weird to keep it open after what looks to be pretty clear off spec chonk modifications gone wrong
but on the other hand it still would have turned a profit, given Rizzo's very true adage "They're tourists, whadda they know?"
but on the other hand it still would have turned a profit, given Rizzo's very true adage "They're tourists, whadda they know?"
Or by an employee who has access to the necessary tool.
donsullivan
Premium Member
It’s really unfortunate this has to come down (lots of people really enjoyed it) but the actions of the operators created the unsafe condition resulting in the death.
Every attraction built makes a set of assumptions of the size profile of passengers when developing the seating and restraint systems. By default, when you do that some people end up outside the size profile (too large or too small) and cannot and should not be allowed to ride for safety reasons. It’s why you see minimum height restrictions on lots of rides. There are a whole set of industry standards (look at ASTM.org) that have been developed over the years for this and all the other design guidelines for attraction development. The entire ride system is based on a maximum guest size profile from the safety restraints to the seats, to the whole physical structure of the attraction. Everything is build to a specific set of weight and safety boundaries.
One of the results of that is some guests who are outside that profile get mad (and sometimes belligerent) when they are not allowed to ride. They take that frustration out on the staff operating the attraction demanding they be allowed to ride ‘or else’. They threaten to sue and demand to ride. The staff operating the attraction should never, ever be forced to deal with that but visitors are often selfish and only care about themselves.
Unfortunately this attraction operator bowed to the demands of guests and modified the seating, reducing the safety of the attraction which resulted in a death. At this point, the operator has shown they will compromise safety to accommodate visitor complaints and as a result they are being forced to remove the attraction.
Hopefully this can be a reminder that if you don’t fit the size profile, you can’t ride. Don’t take it out on the staff operating the attraction, move on and do something else. All of this is done for the safety of the riders- not to ’fat shame’ or anything else against the guests.
Every attraction built makes a set of assumptions of the size profile of passengers when developing the seating and restraint systems. By default, when you do that some people end up outside the size profile (too large or too small) and cannot and should not be allowed to ride for safety reasons. It’s why you see minimum height restrictions on lots of rides. There are a whole set of industry standards (look at ASTM.org) that have been developed over the years for this and all the other design guidelines for attraction development. The entire ride system is based on a maximum guest size profile from the safety restraints to the seats, to the whole physical structure of the attraction. Everything is build to a specific set of weight and safety boundaries.
One of the results of that is some guests who are outside that profile get mad (and sometimes belligerent) when they are not allowed to ride. They take that frustration out on the staff operating the attraction demanding they be allowed to ride ‘or else’. They threaten to sue and demand to ride. The staff operating the attraction should never, ever be forced to deal with that but visitors are often selfish and only care about themselves.
Unfortunately this attraction operator bowed to the demands of guests and modified the seating, reducing the safety of the attraction which resulted in a death. At this point, the operator has shown they will compromise safety to accommodate visitor complaints and as a result they are being forced to remove the attraction.
Hopefully this can be a reminder that if you don’t fit the size profile, you can’t ride. Don’t take it out on the staff operating the attraction, move on and do something else. All of this is done for the safety of the riders- not to ’fat shame’ or anything else against the guests.
Last edited:
I doubt intended, the tone of this post suggests putting at least some of the blame on guests.
Universal has seats on some attractions designed to accomodate larger guests. A reasonable accommodation.
Signage indicating a maximum weight is reasonable but wasn't done.
Having a test seat so guests who are too big aren't embarrassed, and don't slow boarding if they are too big. I don't know if a test seat was available
The blame for allowing guests to ride an unsafely modified ride is 100% on the ride operator/manufacturer. I've read the ride mfg was operating the attraction
donsullivan
Premium Member
Blame for the modification is 100% on the operator, there should be no doubt about that.
But the pressure to make the change came from guests demanding they be allowed to ride even though their physical makeup was outside the design boundaries. If you’re paying attention, you see it all the time where a physically imposing guest who cannot fit attempts to intimidate the operating staff who will not let them ride. Those staff should never have to put up with that. And unfortunately, this operator bent to that pressure and we all know the results.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
This remains unknown, and cannot be stated conclusively, especially with the operator’s relationship to the manufacturer.
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
While I agree this is one of the great side benefit of restraints, if they click you ride, if they don’t you don’t… no matter how belligerent someone becomes it takes the ride operator completely out of the equation.
The other thing I don’t understand is why they didn’t take additional safety measures (seatbelt between the seat and shoulder restraint) if their goal was a couple seats to accommodate larger guests, no matter what the reason for the change was they could have done it in a much safer way. Anyone with any knowledge of restraints should have took one look at that gap and instantly known it was unsafe.
Because had the restraints never been adjusted by someone at icon Park, the seatbelts would have been unnecessary.
This is not a case of the restraints FAILING. This is a case of someone who did not design, build, or test the ride making a modification without the manufacturer’s consent. It was some arrogant soul who thought they could adjust the seat to accommodate larger people despite the strict specs the engineers of the ride determined to be safe.
Yes, a seatbelt would have saved this poor kid’s life. But so would the original restraint limitations, which were adjusted without proper testing or manufacturer’s permission.
Last edited:
I understand your point BUT your post implies unhappy, large guests are at least in part responsible. Ride operators have to deal with kids not meeting height requirements. Guests are a too big are in issue. Ride operators have to deal with it. Solutions include having some seats designed for larger guests. Having a test seat so guests know if they'll be able to ride before they even enter the queue. (not sure if a test seat was available.) Other parks have issues with guests who are too big or too short. They have to deal with unhappy guests.
According to the internet, FWIW, the guest was too large to ride other attractions at Icon park. An employee told him a seat could accommodate him on the free fall. Other attractions at the park had no problem saying sorry. It's even possible money motivated the adjustment. Tired of turning away guests.
cdd89
Well-Known Member
Seatbelts on rides are nothing like 100% reliable. It would likely have saved this kid’s life, but instilled a false sense of security and years down the line someone else might have died when the gap was too large and the seatbelt failed (under the force of the person being pushed through the gap).
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
How about if the belt came up between the legs and clicked into the upper restraint? Longer load but positive retention.
Not the root cause as that is criminal negligence but it could have been designed to prevent this type of accident.
oogie boogie man
Well-Known Member
Very sad news. They should send the guy that adjusted it to jail.
I know what it's like to be a big fella. I've found it's best to not go anything that is thrilling. It's just impossible to guarantee safety even with a competent operator.
I know what it's like to be a big fella. I've found it's best to not go anything that is thrilling. It's just impossible to guarantee safety even with a competent operator.
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
The usual point of seatbelts on a ride like this is not to provide protection, but to make sure the restraint has been lowered enough to be in a correct position. For example, the restraint in this case would not have been lowered enough to click (of course, while illegal altering the sensor they could have altered the length of the seat belt). It might restrain someone (although a 12 year old managed to fall to his death from one with a seatbelt somehow), but its not its primary purpose. There are drop towers that dispense with them (like Dr, Doom)
Gringrinngghost
Well-Known Member
1PM Eastern
A scenario occured on a freefall attraction at an AL carnival a few months back where two ride operators both thought the other had checked the child's seat belt. (a secondary restraint) They quickly realized their error as the passanger (and momma bear down below) screamed for the ride to be lowered back down. The resolute there would have been to employ a single ride operator. In this instance, striving for efficiency impacted safety.
Last edited: