Markey enlists Lassiters to promote safety bill

SFKK has third party yearly inspection. This still happened. Now what?

You Are Wrong. They are annually inspected only by the Dept of Agriculture. They hired Exponent to inspect after the accident while the Plantiffs hired major experts in the industry to do their investigation.

I'm going to guess that you either know the family or are from the area, and I respect that. What these guys, who are experts in the field, are trying to tell you is that ultimately you have human beings involved that can and did neglect to do what they were supposed to. That's tragic and that sucks, but it's the human beings who were responsible for the daily operation of that ride that apparently caused the accident. Additional layers of oversight don't make the human beings any more perfect.

You have federal, state and local officials who inspect bridges, and yet that one in the Twin Cities collapsed. Planes still crash from time to time. Terrorists take down buildings (even domestic terrorists in Oklahoma City). These are all areas where there were people from federal agencies charged with oversight, and bad things still happened.

I struggle with the idea that there wasn't something that could've been done to prevent what happened to Kaitlyn. The truth is that there was... if the people who owned and operated the ride were doing their job. What Markey proposes doesn't make it any more likely that they would do their job.

I got no respect for him at all as more than likely SF took every inspection they did seriously. Probably even surpassed MFG, Recomendations.

So you make it federal jurisdiction? WHo they going to hire to inspect? THE SAME PEOPLE WHO DO IT NOW!

Yes, It's true! Darn true!!!!!!!!

Well Chuck, you don't know the guy, so perhaps you should give him a little slack instead of typing in all caps and using extra exclamation points.

Mr. Charles, don't see how they could have "surpassed" MFG recommendations with all the rust and splintering of the cable ,and the manager saying they Never lubricated the cables ,and oh yeah the Cornstarch. Does Intamin say to use cornstarch? Don't think so. So I still say, if there were another entity looking behind this stuff that knows what they are looking for, then this incident never would have happened.

Charles, do you know anything about this situation at all?

Not only did they not surpass the manufacturer's recommendations, they didn't even come close to them. They screwed up.

When you say that the cables had plenty of lubrication because they smack off the greased rails, you're not taking your job seriously.

When you say that you don't do what the manufacturer requires for testing the cables even though it's in the owner's manual, you're not taking your job seriously.

When a girl loses two feet and the park representative says that they stand by their inspection procedures, you're just plain dumb.

Raphael, as far as third party inspections, I would find it hard to believe that there were none done at all.

While I'm not intimately familiar with the workings of SFKK, I know that at every park I'm familiar with, to get insurance they are required to have a yearly third party inspection. Oftentimes it's much more stringent than the government requirements. I know of rides that were removed from parks even though they were legal because the third party that inspected them for the insurance companies didn't like them.

It's always better to have another set of eyes on something. The problem is who does these third party inspections, and how often? To do detailed, thorough inspections of these rides, they need to be done every day. That's not something that can be done by an outside entity.

At the end of the day, it's the park's responsibility to have trustworthy, competent employees. Nothing can help you if that most important link is broken.

What I know about this case, I would say was pretty intimate. That is why I say that the only other inspection that was represented to be done was after the accident by Exponent, which does alot for SF. And from the condition of the cable it has been a very long time since it was looked at. Had the basic "rag test" been performed, I'm quite sure the 168 breaks per foot would have been noticed. Especially when any break is cause for alarms to be going off in a competent maintenance persons head. So, is there a thought of what could prevent a company for allowing this to go on? I mean, there was more than one person involved in this internally. They knew the cables weren't getting replaced properly, and that the right lay of cables weren't being purchased, and that they decided to go to someone other then Intamin to buy the cables, so they could save a whopping $180 per cable. There must be a way to correct that. It is a reckless way to operate.

Let's back up a bit. Clearly I have missed some of the conversation as I spent the weekend out riding roller coasters instead of posting to CoasterBuzz (Ravine Flyer II is an excellent ride, by the way...).

Let's start with what we agree on:
a) Rides must be inspected daily by qualified inspectors. For what it's worth, this is a requirement of ASTM F 770-06a:6.3.

b) Rides should be inspected by the jurisdictional authority. For what it's worth, this is a requirement of KRS 247.234.

c) Rides must be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. For what it's worth, this is a requirement of ASTM F 770-06a:6 not to mention KAR 16:020§5

d) For whatever reason, the Kentucky Kingdom ride did not comply with (c), above. Lapses in (a) and/or (b) are clearly indicated.

Now here is the problem:

Ed Markey's bill, which has reached various stages in the United States House of Representatives but never passed into law or even passed by the House in each of the last ten years, has two basic provisions.

1) Remove from the Consumer Product Safety Act the language which specifically exempts fixed-site amusement rides from CPSC jurisdiction

2) Increase the CPSC budget by some amount (which changes with each re-introduction of the Act).

Now, let's consider the fact that the CPSC already has jurisdiction over mobile amusement rides, such as the one that collapsed in California this weekend (California, by the way, also has a strong inspection program for mobile rides, so with two different levels of government overseeing the ride, something still managed to go wrong). What exactly does this mean, and what would it mean in the Kentucky case?

The CPSC is responsible for protecting the public from hazardous consumer products. They are NOT, however, responsible for auditing product design or operation to insure product safety. There are far too many products introduced to the market for the CPSC to do that, and to approve all new products would essentially bring new product development to a halt. So the CPSC employs a more effective methodology for rooting out bad products: they investigate known product failures. When an injury is traced to a particular product, the CPSC investigates and attempts to determine the proximate cause of the incident. If that cause turns out to be a design defect in the product, a recall is issued and the manufacturer is enjoined to come up with a fix. Or if there is nothing wrong with the product, the manufacturer may be required to change the product packaging, warnings, instructions or other details to make sure the consumer is warned against the possible injuries associated with the misuse of the product. As you can imagine, they apply a similar methodology to amusement rides, sometimes with mixed results.

What that means in the case of the Kentucky Kingdom drop tower is that absolutely nothing would have changed in the situation in which Kaitlyn L. was separated from her lower extremities. The biggest difference is that following the incident, the CPSC would come in and say, "Hey, there's something wrong here!" and would request the shut-down of all similar drop towers pending the outcome of their investigation. The CPSC would conduct an investigation, and assuming that the allegations of improper maintenance are correct, would probably issue a bulletin telling all the owners of similar towers to immediately inspect their rides, and to perform maintenance as described in the maintenance manual. Ms Kaitlyn would still be justifiably upset (I can't resist saying, "hopping mad" even though it is incredibly poor taste...), the current proceedings would still be going on, and the only change in this conversation would be that we'd be arguing about whether the CPSC is effective at investigating amusement ride incidents or not. What DID happen was that every owner of an Intamin drop tower (including Kennywood, which is the one tower ride owner in the US not associated with a chain of parks that has more than one) shut its ride down and performed a detailed inspection on the wire ropes and sheaves. From news reports, we know that Cedar Fair found problems with the ropes on the tower at Carowinds, and I would assume that was not the only park where problems were found and presumably fixed.

To put it another way, the proposed legislation is a fix for a problem that does not exist. What Raphael is alleging...and what I think the rest of us might even agree with...is that another problem does exist in the enforcement of the existing maintenance standards. The thing is, nobody has yet introduced any legislation that would solve the problem that DOES exist.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

No not bad taste, horrible taste. So since you are in the industry and I guess work behind the scenes, what would work, in your estimation, for this to never be allowed to happen again. Again to say it is understood not all parks operate this way, but SF as a whole has numerous citations and seems to be the one with more park at fault incidents. And if something was tagged to Markeys bill that would ensure a more rigid maintenance requirement, would everyone agree? Because I don't think what is there sounds so bad, although it may not correct everything, it would just place the fear of another entity who will be looking over their shoulder so to speak.

But there is not anything tied to Markey's bill that would change anything but the budget deficit. What do you suggest be added? How do you "ensure a more rigid maintenance requirement?"

Somehow tieing something in the bill that would specify qualified inpectors to have some sort of specialising degree of sorts. We are concerned with what has happened in SFKK, then we saw that there are alot of other things in the same chain that would lend the appearance of mis-management and bad maintenance practices. So unfotunately I guess in order to protect the people from one bad business maybe it needs to be a uniformed change. Since most of the strong lobbying is tied directly to SF, I understand why they don't want this bill, that was slid through under the Reagan years and it was slid through, changed at all.

---

So since you are in the industry and I guess work behind the scenes, what would work, in your estimation, for this to never be allowed to happen again.

---

Not in the industry, nor do I work behind the scenes. However, I think I can provide an answer to this question:

Nothing.

Accidents happen. Even with the strictest of rules and laws. Even with countless eyes from countless organizations looking at the rides. Even with human perfection.

Accidents will still happen. It's easy to forget that these rides are machinery. Machines fail on occasion. People make mistakes on occasion. Several people working towards the same goal make mistakes on occasion. There's no guarantee anywhere...ever...on anything.

Regardless of who was at fault and for what reason in the SFKK accident - nothing can guarantee this won't happen again.

Well Lord ,I think that is an obviously uneducated statement since all the evidence that has been made public, let alone that which hasn't, says this clearly could have been prevented, so to say nothing, and I might add in such bold confident lettering, is to say at the least, very Stupid!

Wow. The irony. :)

I didn't say THIS incident, nor did you ask about THIS incident. You asked about letting this happen again. I even qualified it with, "Regardless of who was at fault and for what reason in the SFKK accident" to make it clear that I wasn't referring to that incident specifically.

Will you stop using bold, confident letting at me if I lie and tell you that another set of eyeballs looking at the rides will guarantee the safety of everyone who ever rides an amusement ride at any park, fair, carnival or place of amusement?

Sorry you don't want to hear the truth. :(

Dude, that's not the truth, and this thread is primarily about that accident, no? And I would guarantee that if the right knowledgable people were looking at this cable, this would have never happened. So that is why I'm saying, something should be in place so that can never happen again. Sorry if you don't agree, but maybe you would change your tune if you knew more about this accident. So where is this irony.*** This post was edited by Raphael 5/19/2008 11:33:46 AM ****** This post was edited by Raphael 5/19/2008 11:56:33 AM ***

The irony is in the fact that the thread is about the bill that Markey is proposing. You keep trying to turn it into a thread about the incident at SFKK, but I see it as a thread discusing whether giving the CSPC authority would change anything in the industry...

...and it won't.

And there's a good chance it may not have at SFKK as well.

Again, the truth hurts sometimes, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Agreed! This thread is about the involvement of the Lasitter family whose daughter was severly injurded due to the Negligence of a major Corporation, which has bought it's way through Washington so that they don't have any outside interference when things like this go on. I for one believe these Corporations should be held accountable the whole way, and if some new law needs to be enacted to ensure this, then I'm with it the whole way. How would you be appoaching this, let's say if we were in those parents place?

I know you won't believe this, but I wouldn't be pushing for new laws or bills that wouldn't change anything.

I'd be more concerned in getting restitution from SF for their negligence.

I believe they (corporations) should be held accountable too. I don't believe getting the government involved is going to change a thing.

Don't let intense feelings override rational thought. It's easy to get caught up and be angry and upset. But a clear mind free of that emotion understands that the additional regulation proposed by Markey doesn't create much more than the additional perception of safety.

I even understand why you believe that another set of eyeballs on things would help, but it won't eliminate the threat of an accident. Nothing will stop things like what happened to Kaitlyn from happening again.

What happens when this bill is passed and people still get injured on amusement rides? Then what? Even more strict regulation? Someone watching the watchdogs? Banning amusement rides altogether?

What happens when the government gets involved and accidents still happen?

I definitely agree with what you're saying, however why do you think it is that these corporation are lobbying so hard to keep this? Is it because maybe if they had to report the real statistics and weren't able to write all things off as rider error, that maybe people would understand and choose other forms of recreation? And I would think that was a given, as far as compensation, that's what lawyers are for.*** This post was edited by Raphael 5/19/2008 12:31:41 PM ***