-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disneyland Fantasmic Dragon Engulfed in Flames
- Thread starter SplashJacket
- Start date
shambolicdefending
Well-Known Member
No way! That would put an end to PeopleMover returning rumors, which is my favorite Disneyland internet trope.
MadTeacup
Well-Known Member
Reading through this thread, there is clearly a lot of misconception about how a fire like this is contained. Disneyland clearly had an effective plan in place which was to control, but not extinguish the fire. This was evidenced by the short burn time (15 min is short) and the isolation of the flames to just the animatronic.
First, a fire with an active fuel source such as the Isopar gas that Murphy breaths cannot be suppressed effectively. Without a way to safely shut off the fuel source, even the most sophisticated fire suppression system would not have been effective. The only safe response in this circumstance is to let the fuel burn.
It is very clear that the fuel tank is designed to burn off fairly quickly (in about 15 minutes or so). This is a purposeful design so that the fire will be mostly controlled or at least easily contained by the time emergency responders can arrive. I believe the Isopar fuel also burns at a relatively cool temperature. Additionally, with the Dragon structure designed to default to an upright position, it spreads out the burning surface while minimizing the footprint of the burning object. This helps ensure the fire doesn't burn too hot and keeps it from spreading.
Despite what some people argue about convenient placement of the lift prior to the flame effects, it is still required that all new flame effects added to an attraction are designed with proper protections and safety clearances in place. When the flame effects were added, all modern safety guidance was followed.
Evacuation measures were taken as a precaution, but not as a life-safety measure. The fire showed no sign of spreading and was a safe distance from the guests. Disneyland has measures in place for quicker evacuations in times of life-threatening emergencies. This was clearly not deemed life threatening because, to my knowledge, no guests were being escorted to backstage areas.
In my opinion, the cast and crew responded well. The fluid leaking from the mouth may be easy to see when watching a video multiple times, but is easy to miss in the moment, especially when viewing from far away without a zoomed-in camera. The important thing was that when they saw the fire, they reacted quickly and correctly. They parked the animatronic upright and lowered Mickey's lift before shutting down the show control. The only poor response I saw was allowing people on stage with extinguishers and hoses.
My biggest disappointment is that the lessons learned from the Festival of Fantasy Parade Fire at Magic Kingdom were not applied to Disneyland's Fantasmic! When the Maleficent float was rebuilt, she was redesigned to essentially have two fuel tanks. One is the main storage tank and one is more of a standby tank. The standby tank is very small and can only support enough fuel for one burst of flame. Before each burst, the standby tank is filled with fuel from the main tank. A valve is then closed between the two tanks and a sensor tells a computer that the standby tank is filled and ready. Only if the sensor is reading as closed will the standby tank valve open, allowing the fuel to escape and ignite. If the valve for the standby tank fails to close after the burst of flame, no harm done! There is only enough fuel to burn for about 5 seconds or less. This system was actually deemed safer than ANY fire suppression system that could have been installed in the float. It seemed a no-brainer that Disney would retro-fit other fire effects with similar systems. Sadly that was not the case. Yet another example of how REactive vs. PROactive Disney tends to be when it costs money...
First, a fire with an active fuel source such as the Isopar gas that Murphy breaths cannot be suppressed effectively. Without a way to safely shut off the fuel source, even the most sophisticated fire suppression system would not have been effective. The only safe response in this circumstance is to let the fuel burn.
It is very clear that the fuel tank is designed to burn off fairly quickly (in about 15 minutes or so). This is a purposeful design so that the fire will be mostly controlled or at least easily contained by the time emergency responders can arrive. I believe the Isopar fuel also burns at a relatively cool temperature. Additionally, with the Dragon structure designed to default to an upright position, it spreads out the burning surface while minimizing the footprint of the burning object. This helps ensure the fire doesn't burn too hot and keeps it from spreading.
Despite what some people argue about convenient placement of the lift prior to the flame effects, it is still required that all new flame effects added to an attraction are designed with proper protections and safety clearances in place. When the flame effects were added, all modern safety guidance was followed.
Evacuation measures were taken as a precaution, but not as a life-safety measure. The fire showed no sign of spreading and was a safe distance from the guests. Disneyland has measures in place for quicker evacuations in times of life-threatening emergencies. This was clearly not deemed life threatening because, to my knowledge, no guests were being escorted to backstage areas.
In my opinion, the cast and crew responded well. The fluid leaking from the mouth may be easy to see when watching a video multiple times, but is easy to miss in the moment, especially when viewing from far away without a zoomed-in camera. The important thing was that when they saw the fire, they reacted quickly and correctly. They parked the animatronic upright and lowered Mickey's lift before shutting down the show control. The only poor response I saw was allowing people on stage with extinguishers and hoses.
My biggest disappointment is that the lessons learned from the Festival of Fantasy Parade Fire at Magic Kingdom were not applied to Disneyland's Fantasmic! When the Maleficent float was rebuilt, she was redesigned to essentially have two fuel tanks. One is the main storage tank and one is more of a standby tank. The standby tank is very small and can only support enough fuel for one burst of flame. Before each burst, the standby tank is filled with fuel from the main tank. A valve is then closed between the two tanks and a sensor tells a computer that the standby tank is filled and ready. Only if the sensor is reading as closed will the standby tank valve open, allowing the fuel to escape and ignite. If the valve for the standby tank fails to close after the burst of flame, no harm done! There is only enough fuel to burn for about 5 seconds or less. This system was actually deemed safer than ANY fire suppression system that could have been installed in the float. It seemed a no-brainer that Disney would retro-fit other fire effects with similar systems. Sadly that was not the case. Yet another example of how REactive vs. PROactive Disney tends to be when it costs money...
Last edited:
The plumes of toxic smoke should have been a motivation to proceed as if it were an emergency, and not just a contained fire.
With fires, it's not just the flames, it's the smoke, heat, and toxicity that causes more injury and death.
They were extremely lucky there weren't any winds keeping the smoke at the ground level. Several CMs were treated on site for smoke inhalation.
MadTeacup
Well-Known Member
You are 100% correct. There was clearly a need to immediately evacuate the island, which they appear to have done. I'm not sure what the benefits would have been for a more rapid guest evacuation.The smoke appears to have been at a distance and mostly traveling straight up. While there likely was some exposure to smoke, there may not have been a high enough concentration in guest areas to cause harm and warrant rapid evacuation. I'm under the belief that the evacuation method they chose was the most appropriate for the situation. It didn't incite panic and still got everyone to safety. We're also not certain how toxic the smoke was. My guess is that the materials that burned released few toxins based on the fact that the cast members treated for smoke inhalation only required on-site treatment. Whether this is true or was known at the time of the fire, I'm not sure.
I agree. The situation could have gotten out of hand very fast if there was panic by eergency evacuation.
Image the panic if the wind blew that toxic smoke into the crowds.
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
They wouldn't run the show if there was any chance of wind.
chadwpalm
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
The wind actually blew the smoke north into Galaxy's Edge (where ironically they were leading everyone to). The smoke was so bad there you couldn't see the tops of the buildings or spires. I could smell the smoke all the way inside of the Falcon chess room. The air was filled with a burnt metallic smell.
Also, while everyone is saying because the fire was on the island nobody was in real danger, the reason my friend an I left the area is because we were concerned the fire could lead back to a fuel tank and cause an explosion or something. It probably wasn't going to happen, but those thoughts do go through your mind.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
For some reason, and not because I'm finishing my second glass of Malbec this evening, the "Dear Guest" salutation just makes me laugh.
Dear Guest,
Dear Customer,
Dear Person,
Dear Human,
There's got to be a better way of starting a generic letter like that, even if they don't want to go to the trouble of finding the surname on the credit card that reserved the dinner that caused the email to be sent. Or, now that I type that, the right answer is to use 21st century technology to attach the credit card name to any formal business correspondence regarding that purchase. "Dear Ms. Johnson..."
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
Like what?For some reason, and not because I'm finishing my second glass of Malbec this evening, the "Dear Guest" salutation just makes me laugh.
Dear Guest,
Dear Customer,
Dear Person,
Dear Human,
There's got to be a better way of starting a generic letter like that, even if they don't want to go to the trouble of finding the surname on the credit card that reserved the dinner that caused the email to be sent. Or, now that I type that, the right answer is to use 21st century technology to attach the credit card name to any formal business correspondence regarding that purchase. "Dear Ms. Johnson..."
If you're going to send a generic announcement to every guest affected, and Guest is a term that Disney has famously employed for a long time, what would be better?
Disney Analyst
Well-Known Member
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I don't know what the answer is in 2023, but a slightly creepy "Dear Guest" isn't it.
In the old days, a professional letter from a business to a random customer would begin "Dear Sir or Madam", but obviously today that would send a whole bunch of gender non-binary folks into fits of TikTok rage.
"Dear Guest" just reads as so cheesy and disingenuous to me. They obviously know the names of the people who already bought the product, because they have the credit card info on file. So "Dear Mr. Smith" or "Dear Ms. Nguyen" would be far more appropriate when a business is reaching out to them to tell them the product they bought is no longer available and they're being refunded their money.
It's no big deal in the big ballgame of life in 2023. It's just a reminder that the details are going unattended to now by Disney's once-vaunted theme park business. That's all.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I fully expect that Knott's Berry Farm and Universal Studios will poke fun at Disneyland's misfortune this Halloween season.
And if they don't, I'll be mad and demanding to speak to the manager.
TheCoasterNerd
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
me if they don't mock disneyI fully expect that Knott's Berry Farm and Universal Studios will poke fun at Disneyland's misfortune this Halloween season.
And if they don't, I'll be mad and demanding to speak to the manager.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I know you like to nitpick almost everything Disney does this days....
Even in 2023 "Dear Guest" is a perfectly acceptable salutation in an email for a business who calls all their customers guests.
Beyond "Dear Guest" they could have used the first name of the person who made the reservation, as they already do with other correspondence. Especially since using honorifics are becoming outdated and less used by many businesses these days to avoid misgendering a person or assuming marital status. However in this case using "Guest" instead of a first name in a blanket mass email that is being sent to potentially thousands of guests at once is perfectly fine.
Also just a little fyi there was no charge to the credit card, hence no refund given.