Disney filed new patent- Track-based Swing Ride with Long Arm Pendulum

[peter11435]

Long swing-arm rides will be getting extra scrutiny after what happened at the Ohio State Fair. Here's hoping they engineer in some extra corrosion control and access to inspect the interior of those arms...

There are numerous tests that Disney already does on set intervals for its existing attractions that would detect corrosion.

 

[lazyboy97o]

There are numerous tests that Disney already does on set intervals for its existing attractions that would detect corrosion.

The incident in Ohio was shocking to the amusement industry because the wider industry thought [then] current practices would catch such corrosion.

 

[Cesar R M]

The mechanics will be inside a climate controlled building if it was ever built. I think that goes a long way to preventing corrosion

Maybe, but remember that thanks to lower temps against normal air temp of outside, can cause condensation.
Corrosion can happen there as well.

 

[peter11435]

The incident in Ohio was shocking to the amusement industry because the wider industry thought [then] current practices would catch such corrosion.

What kind of practices besides visible inspection were in place?

 

[Brad Bishop]

What kind of practices besides visible inspection were in place?

Someone correct me but I think that's how most of the inspections take place, carnival or Disney.

They're not going out to the track with a complicated set of scientific instruments and chemicals to figure out if something has a problem, they're generally walking the track or inspecting the ride for any signs of visible fractures.

At the park I worked at, way back in the day, there were daily inspections (generally visible and by the ride operators (teenagers)) and if anything was noticed then they'd call maintenance. At the same time maintenance had a ride-rotation deal of refurbishing each ride every so many years.

I think that there is the notion that because it's Disney there's some kind of high-caliber testing happening and I think that's a false notion.

I think visible inspection is reasonable. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just disputing the notion that you have scientists going out and performing metal fatigue tests on all components of a ride. That just doesn't happen.

I think it mostly boils down to:
- visible checks
- bad sensors (replacement)
- resetting rides after a malfunction (like the ride stopped because of a bad sensor, not part of the ride fell off and they decided to just go ahead and restart it - though something like that did happen at Alton Towers a few years back (components didn't fall off but the maintenance guy just reset it without checking causing several deaths, I believe)).


Also - not knocking you or anyone else for thinking Disney has more in place than it does. I think it's just a common misconception. Again, if someone knows for sure that Disney really is doing lab-coat tests, certainly correct me. I just don't think that's the reality or is really even warranted.

Keep in mind, too, that sometimes bad things happen. Yeah, maybe that other thing could have gotten checked but didn't for some reason but you're going to have ride failures in the future. It's industrial equipment and it's going to happen. You can reduce your risks somewhat but never eliminate them.

 

[peter11435]

Someone correct me but I think that's how most of the inspections take place, carnival or Disney.

They're not going out to the track with a complicated set of scientific instruments and chemicals to figure out if something has a problem, they're generally walking the track or inspecting the ride for any signs of visible fractures.

At the park I worked at, way back in the day, there were daily inspections (generally visible and by the ride operators (teenagers)) and if anything was noticed then they'd call maintenance. At the same time maintenance had a ride-rotation deal of refurbishing each ride every so many years.

I think that there is the notion that because it's Disney there's some kind of high-caliber testing happening and I think that's a false notion.

I think visible inspection is reasonable. I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just disputing the notion that you have scientists going out and performing metal fatigue tests on all components of a ride. That just doesn't happen.

I think it mostly boils down to:
- visible checks
- bad sensors (replacement)
- resetting rides after a malfunction (like the ride stopped because of a bad sensor, not part of the ride fell off and they decided to just go ahead and restart it - though something like that did happen at Alton Towers a few years back (components didn't fall off but the maintenance guy just reset it without checking causing several deaths, I believe)).


Also - not knocking you or anyone else for thinking Disney has more in place than it does. I think it's just a common misconception. Again, if someone knows for sure that Disney really is doing lab-coat tests, certainly correct me. I just don't think that's the reality or is really even warranted.

Keep in mind, too, that sometimes bad things happen. Yeah, maybe that other thing could have gotten checked but didn't for some reason but you're going to have ride failures in the future. It's industrial equipment and it's going to happen. You can reduce your risks somewhat but never eliminate them.

I can't speak for other parks but I know Disney does go beyond visible inspection. Visible inspection is obviously the most common method and happens daily. But ride components are also subject to other inspection such as fatigue testing, ultrasonic testing, pressure tests and magnetic particle inspection at set intervals. These obviously don't happen all the time but primary components are checked on a set schedule.

 

[AEfx]

Really?

How many times has Disney used largely unskilled workers with little to no formal training tear down that ride, pack it in a truck, and then reconstruct it a few days later on in another spot in some field or parking lot somewhere?

 

[larryz]

How many times has Disney used largely unskilled workers with little to no formal training tear down that ride, pack it in a truck, and then reconstruct it a few days later on in another spot in some field or parking lot somewhere?

None... that I know of. Do we know if they bought it new or used? How do we know the workers that installed it to begin with were qualified to do so? And how do we know that the workers who run it/maintain it are qualified to do so?

Do we know if they're even in-house or contract employees? Or maybe even CPers...

 

[peter11435]

None... that I know of. Do we know if they bought it new or used? How do we know the workers that installed it to begin with were qualified to do so? And how do we know that the workers who run it/maintain it are qualified to do so?

Do we know if they're even in-house or contract employees? Or maybe even CPers...

Some of us actually know the answers to all of your questions.

 

[AEfx]

Some of us actually know the answers to all of your questions.

Yup - the jig is up. Disney bought it off of a roadside carnival and a bunch of CPers threw it up in the middle of the night...

(It may *look* that way, but that is beside the point, LOL.)

 

[Tim Lohr]

Unfortunately Disney patents everything their employees/imagineers come up with, whether they plan to use it or not, in part so other companies/park can't do something similar. Getting a patent is the legal way for The Disney Company to own that ride system, and not the individual employees/imagineers/person or people who designed it

 

[NormC]

Same as getting a patent for anything by anybody.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Unfortunately Disney patents everything their employees/imagineers come up with, whether they plan to use it or not, in part so other companies/park can't do something similar. Getting a patent is the legal way for The Disney Company to own that ride system, and not the individual employees/imagineers/person or people who designed it

Patents only protect a specific implementation, not an idea. Having a patent does not prevent others from doing something similar. Dynamic Attractions sells its own version of a flying theater despite also being the manufacturer of Disney’s patented Soarin’ ride system.

 

[MichRX7]

Patents only protect a specific implementation, not an idea. Having a patent does not prevent others from doing something similar. Dynamic Attractions sells its own version of a flying theater despite also being the manufacturer of Disney’s patented Soarin’ ride system.

Not entirely true. If I have an idea that can be demonstrated unique to solving a problem or issue that idea can be patented. And yes, it does prevent others from doing something too similar. The claims within the patent describe what the idea does or it's process, and the implementation of someone else's idea must not coincide with those claims. A well written patent can be extremely hard to get around, which is why patent lawyers make so much damn money.

I've written a few patents regarding computer software and business process. Well written, good for you. Poorly written, good for your future competitors as you've just described to them publicly how to best you.

 

[MichRX7]

But you can also license your patent to other companies to use it and they pay you a fee for that. Maybe this is what DA is doing with the flying theater concept.

 

[larryz]

Yup - the jig is up. Disney bought it off of a roadside carnival and a bunch of CPers threw it up in the middle of the night...

(It may *look* that way, but that is beside the point, LOL.)

I knew it!

 

[RSoxNo1]

The ride was not built in some shack and passed the same sort of inspections that even Disney would have been required to perform.

And yet it has resulted in more deaths than nearly every roadside attraction.

 

[jt04]

So the metaphor I use to illustrate the cyclical nature of investments in Disney parks has been translated into a ride system.

Cool.