Graphic Injury at SFMM Saturday

A woman's foot got jammed between the train and the loading floor on Full Throttle on Saturday, and it looks absolutely brutal. Weird that I haven't really seen any news coverage on this, especially since an amateur vid was put on TikTok. It appears that her foot is almost cut in half and folded over. She is screaming bloody murder and a lot of bystanders are screaming too.

Surprisingly, I finally found a little article about it and it says she had only minor injuries... not sure if they're considering broken foot bones minor or not. But if you're brave and/or morbid like I am, you can find the username @wrotebydrew on TikTok to see the video (caption "How does this even happen?")

Any ideas on how this could happen?? Here's the little news blurb I found on it:

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2305708857930/person-suffers-minor-i...-six-flags

--Josh--

I don't particularly feel the need to see the footage, so I'll just ask: "Was she on the train or in the station?"

She's sitting in the car and her foot was stuck in between the train car and concrete platform. One would struggle to fit your hand in that space, it's a tight clearance. She must have managed to get her foot out of the restraint at some point it got lodged as the train was pulling into the station. If I were to guess her foot was never in the restraint and the train was dispatched that way.

Yeah I feel like it must have been dispatched without her leg being properly secured by the restraints, and then it came back into the station with her foot hanging off the side. There's no other way she could have got her foot in that gap; I don't see how you could even struggle it free during the ride. Yeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

Going to skip the viewing of this but I did once watch a coworker get her shoelace caught on the kick pedals of an Arrow train shoulder harness unlocking system. That doesn't sound so back until you hear that she was standing at the end of the platform, stationary, and kicking the pedals as the train was entering the station...at a pretty good clip.

She ended up on the station floor and got dragged until the train stopped. It looked worse than the ultimately injuries (scrapes and bruises) but had the train shot the station she would have been in for a pretty good drop.

Needless to say, that wasn't SOP for unlocking the kick pedals.

When I worked at CP it was at a concession stand across from Space Spiral. I was at the window the day the op had her foot over the edge of the platform when the cabin came down. It wedged her entire foot and I’ll never forget the sound of her screaming. She was on the exit ramp and the passengers inside were helpless. Finally the operator inside the cabin raised the cabin up a few feet and she collapsed on the platform. She was from Tennessee and her parents had to drive up to get her.
After that they installed gates on the platforms and operators had to stay behind it.

wahoo skipper said:
Needless to say, that wasn't SOP for unlocking the kick pedals.

Might not have been SOP, but it also wasn't entirely uncommon.

(Not sure what the year was for that clip)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

The video reminds me of something I was thinking about another thread, where it was posted that a crew was able to see the time remaining to dispatch a train without stacking. On the one hand, that's useful information that can help motivate a crew and enable them to meet their goals. On the other hand, you wouldn't want a crew to rush through things or skip steps or otherwise take a careless approach (like unlocking a moving train*) because they're feeling the pressure of a clock counting down. It's like when Domino's was guaranteeing 30 minute delivery and their drivers were crashing because they were afraid of arriving late.

*It's not clear whether that ride op was trying to be efficient or just didn't want to walk all the way down the platform and back.

Hershey's Candymonium has an LCD screen in the station for all to see. There's a timer to measure dispatch times and a dynamic map of the train that shows the seats being filled/emptied. It's pretty cool. I'm not sure it's something the ops are looking at the whole time since they have jobs to do, but then again...

Kind of related to both my comment and this accident was an incident that occurred when I was boarding Candymonium last month with my family. I was seated second car, far left seat (nearest the loading platform), and while I was looking to the right to make sure my daughter was getting her restraint secured, the girl checking the restraints took a misstep between the back of the front car and the front of ours. I didn't see it happen, but when I turned around, I saw her looking up from the height of the car floor; her left leg and arm were out of sight in the hole (see image below) and her right leg was still on the loading platform. If I recall, her left shoulder was braced against the wheel. My restraint was locked so I had to lean pretty far over to grab her hand and help her up, which took some effort despite her being pretty small, just because she was pretty far down there and I had little leverage. I was surprised she didn't injure herself as it was a pretty good spill. Maybe she was looking at the dispatch times instead of where she was stepping...?

A few of the newer B&M’s have those screens for all to see. Fury325 and Valravn come to mind.
What I like to do is, well first of all, look at my seat to make sure my restraint is closed, then watch as the rest of them change one by one. If there’s a large guest causing a delay they’re usually easily identified.
(And I’m not shaming- once I looked up and that person was me…)

Steel Vengeance is doing that pretty hardcore this year.

I'm not a fan, quicker moving line or not.

Orion and Diamondback at KI have those screens this year. I'm sure Diamondback didn't have the screen in prior years. It may have been added last year.

A friend messaged me the tik-tik video. it is horrific.

Those screens have become necessary because of some, in my opinion, rather stupid design decisions, brought on by an equally stupid international design standard. I actually called it out during a meeting and was told by a European ride engineer that "That's not the way it's supposed to work" when I pointed out that's exactly how it's being implemented.

Traditionally, a trained operator can look at a rider, note the relative position of the restraint and the rider, verify with a quick tug that it is locked, and move on to the next seat.

ASTM F2291-20:6.4.3.8(5), in the description of restraint requirements for Class 5, states:

(5) Type of External Correct or Incorrect Indication—An external indication is required. Detecting the failure of any monitored device shall either bring the ride to a cycle stop or inhibit cycle start.

This has been interpreted in various ways, but most commonly to indicate that there must be an indication that tells that the restraint is in the "correct" position, and if it is not in that position there must be telemetry so that the cycle can't start if the position is "incorrect". I think this can equally be interpreted to indicate simply whether the restraint is locked or unlocked, but because the standard says "Correct or Incorrect" the usual interpretation is that the bar has to be in the "correct" position for the rider. Of course, there is no mechanical way to detect the "correct" position of an adjustable restraint against a random rider, so the only way to be "safe" about it is to use a limit switch which indicates "correct" when the restraint is positioned in a position determined to be safe for the smallest rider you can put in the seat. Aside from the obvious question of "Why, then, should we bother making the restraint adjustable as required by F2291-20:6.4.3.8(2)?", this means that when the restraint is in a position which is clearly appropriate and adequate for the person in the seat, that very well might *not* be the position which will make the limit switch happy, which means the only way ride attendants can tell if the restraint position is "correct" is not to check it against the rider, but to see the indication reported by the ride controls.

If you think that seems a bit silly...well, so do I. Personally, I think the entirety of ASTM F2291-20:6.4.3 should be abolished as it is too prescriptive, and redundant to other requirements of section 6.4. Unfortunately I joined the committee much too late to make that argument before it got adopted.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

No one says it enough... Thanks Dave. Your insight is invaluable.

Full Throttle is listed as "Temporarily Closed" on the SFMM website as of Sunday 7/18.

RideMan said:

Those screens have become necessary because of some, in my opinion, rather stupid design decisions, brought on by an equally stupid international design standard. I actually called it out during a meeting and was told by a European ride engineer that "That's not the way it's supposed to work" when I pointed out that's exactly how it's being implemented.

Traditionally, a trained operator can look at a rider, note the relative position of the restraint and the rider, verify with a quick tug that it is locked, and move on to the next seat.

Is relying on the judgement of a “trained” operator really desired? Human judgement at worst is prone to failure or at best is subject to a wide range of interpretation. In other words I might forget to tug on the restraint, or my idea of an acceptable restraint position may differ greatly from your idea of acceptability.

ASTM F2291-20:6.4.3.8(5), in the description of restraint requirements for Class 5, states:

(5) Type of External Correct or Incorrect Indication—An external indication is required. Detecting the failure of any monitored device shall either bring the ride to a cycle stop or inhibit cycle start.

This has been interpreted in various ways, but most commonly to indicate that there must be an indication that tells that the restraint is in the "correct" position, and if it is not in that position there must be telemetry so that the cycle can't start if the position is "incorrect". I think this can equally be interpreted to indicate simply whether the restraint is locked or unlocked, but because the standard says "Correct or Incorrect" the usual interpretation is that the bar has to be in the "correct" position for the rider. Of course, there is no mechanical way to detect the "correct" position of an adjustable restraint against a random rider, so the only way to be "safe" about it is to use a limit switch which indicates "correct" when the restraint is positioned in a position determined to be safe for the smallest rider you can put in the seat.

It seems to me that the modern coasters, at least the ones with the monitoring screens on which you can see the red/green light, do not use a limit switch that is set to the position of the restraint for the smallest person possible. There is no way a very large person is going to be able to get the green light if the switch is indeed set-up for the very small person. I say this simply based on my observation which I know is not foolproof, but watching the operator push and push and try to get additional leverage to get the light to go green tells me that it is not set to a small person. Again, an observation, but I have had my restraint be in the green position, only to have the operator push it further against me. That tells me the switch is not set for a small person, but rather I think for what is deemed the minimum “safe” position in which a rider, no matter their size, is restrained. And in this case the minimum is being set by the manufacturer and not the ride operator.

In regards to the public display of the green/red board, I imagine this is a benefit to the park. A person sitting in the seat has a red light. If the operator/rider is able to push the restraint to get it to go green then you ride. If not, no ride. Cut and dry. It is not left to the interpretation of the operator or the rider. In other words no gray area.

A lap bar restraint is a geometric restraint. B&M set the minimum closed position to the point where the end of the lap bar meets the end of the 'armrest'. it's the point where the restraining features of the seat and lap bar form a closed loop. The idea is that the shape of the seat and the restraint is such that a small rider secured with the bar in that position is not going to come out. It may not be the most secure or even the most comfortable bar position for that smaller rider, but it's a position where...in theory at least...the smallest rider who meets the height requirement can be considered 'secure'.

If Intamin used that standard with their giga-coaster seats, none of us would be able to ride. The exception, of course, is Xcelerator, where they bulked up the arm rests out to the 'safe' bar position.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.