Mother and daughter freak-out on Kennywood's Pitt Fall

---

Glory of Kirah said:

Maybe everyone should step back from their general dislike for the "GP" and look at things from the perspective of a non-enthusiast.

---

I really don't think that anyone here has a general dislike for the GP. If anyone does, they're in for a sad surprise: to those of us in the industry, you're ALL GP.

No matter how unfamiliar someone would be with ride mechanics and safety mechanisms, how could any reasonable adult actually think that in this day and age there would be a 250+ foot drop attraction where the only thing holding you in is a seat belt to which all riders have access to unbuckle? Seriously.

I know jack about Boeing jets, but I know if my turn that little vent on above the seat, it's not going to depressurize the cabin and make the plane crash.

There simply is no self-responsibility in today's society. Nothing's ever anyone's fault.

I'm sorry if your kid was scared by the Pitt Fall. Honestly. Try Idlewild next time.

------------------
Come on, fhqwgads!

Totally ignoring if the women was right or wrong in her argument, the ride cycle should not have continued if the seat belt was not buckled, especially since the car was at or close to ground level. Kennywood should see this as a clear rider violation of safety rules. What is especially important here is that the rider was a young, small person. Perfect for possibly submarining out of the seat, as happened to a person at PGA. An Estop and a gentle lowering of the car would eliminate the possibility of submarining due to high G forces during the brake run.

My feeling is that even if the restraint is a backup, it is there for a purpose. If ignoring restraint tampering is a common attitude at Kennywood, they need to revamp their operations a bit.

------------------
I'd rather be in my boat with a drink on the rocks,
than in the drink with a boat on the rocks.

The idea that seatbelts are "backups" has already caused one tragedy this summer. On an amusement ride there is no such thing as a backup restraint- all restraints should be considered primary.

The op should have stopped the ride. Not because the kid was freaking out, but because her belt was undone. Always think worst-case scenario all the time when dealing with people (enthusiasts included) and you're far better off.

------------------
- John
I snap flyers.

kpjp said:

"I really don't think that anyone here has a general dislike for the GP. If anyone does, they're in for a sad surprise: to those of us in the industry, you're ALL GP."

I agree with half of that statement, but disagree with the other half.

All GP... agreed:

Even if people insist on using the self ordained title of "Enthusiast", we are all "General Public" to the parks. The title fo "enthusiast" is, as I said, a self given title... it does not give any special privliges, any special perks, any special rights. An "Enthusiast" must abide by the same rules and regulations as anyone else. Any special perks (ERT at events etc) are perks that are granted to them by the good graces of certain parks during certain events. However, to some (a minority I would hope, but certainly a vocal minority), the term is a self appointed badge of honor. They consider themselves "Enthusiasts" and anyone who does not fit their deffinition of that term (i.e. anyone who disagrees with anything they say or challenges their "authority") is looked down on as "GP"... which brings me to the other half of the statement...

No one here has a dislike for the "GP": I disagree. Simply read some of the posts on this board. Some (again, a minority) look it as a "Us" and "Them" situation. To some the "GP" are simply little ignorant peasants (vermin?) that are simply at parks to either a) annoy, b) get in the way of, c) both annoy and get in the way of the true "enthusiasts"... who after all are the people that the parks are really there for. In certain people's views, the GP serves one purpose and one purpose only... to spend admission fees to get into parks to keep the parks operating simply because the numbers of true "enthusiasts" (the people who the parks are really built for) is really too small to keep the parks operating. Heck, in the perfect world, the "Enthusiasts" shouldn't even have to pay to get in to parks... let the "GP" take care of all of that. Granted, I do not share these thoughts... again, we are all GP to the parks... however, a stranger stumbling upon this board and reading some of these posts could easily come away with that impression I am afraid.

Continuing the Rant... Is it just me, but when an incident (such as the seat belt on PittFall) or an accident (such as the death of the woman at SFNO) happens at certain parks or parks of a certain chain it has got to be the fault either a) the "stupid GP" (if it is at a park / chain that is a favorite on the boards) or b) "typical bad operating procedures" (if it is at a park / chain that is not a favorite on the boards) or c) certainly not rider error if the person involved is considered a "fellow enthusiast" (no matter what park it may be at)?

Sorry, just being cynical I guess.

Since everyone seems to be wanting to make a new organization... CPO(formerly CPS) (or what ever order the initials are in) and C.R.A.P.... it is times like these that I feel like founding a new one for all of us General Public out there... "General Public and Proud (GP&P)"

"Park policy is not to stop rides unless there is a health or safety problem."

If a 10 year old unbuckling her restraints on a 250 foot tall ride is not a safety issue then what is? Does one have to be hanging from the seat before it is considered dangerous? The reason we have back up systems is for the inevitable time the first system fails. If it wasnt a concern then why add the restraint to begin with? Someone at the park obviously felt it was important enough to add the restraint the second year.

The last thing I want is some 18 year old, with little actual life experience and with most likely no fear of death at that age telling me that back up systems are not important. They are there for a reason and to knowingly launch an adult oriented ride with a 10 year old deliberatley undoing the safety restraints in my mind is unresponsible.

I would have stopped the ride THEN booted the family from the park for deliberately engaging in dagerous negligent behavior on a ride.

------------------
Every coaster is a labor of love that begins as a gleam in someone's eye!

Agreeing 100% with what Spirit in the Sky said, I'll add this...

Aside from all the obvious and previous mentioned safety concerns, another one is do you really want a seat belt unattached while the ride is in its descent? Look how the drop affects a person's hair, lose fitting clothes, even arms and legs. Do you really want a strap with a piece of metal attached free to fly around at will and hit and injure the rider (and to a lesser extent possibly damage the ride itself)?

------------------
Kind of hard to take a post as objective if a park or coaster name is part of the "user name"

Spirit in the Sky said "The last thing I want is some 18 year old, with little actual life experience and with most likely no fear of death at that age telling me that back up systems are not important. "

Or to see some eighteen-year-old letting under-sized children on a certain East Coast hypercoaster. It's a different story and a different occassion, but seeing this response brought it to mind and I just got angry all over again.
All it takes is one bad occassion to shut down an amazing ride. Non-chalance and doing things to win the 'cool factor' from the queue crowd may seem appealing, but so is (1) a paying job and (2) the unmarred reputation of an amazing thrill ride. Two different rides and occassions, same basic idea.

------------------
"The most wasted of all days is one without laughter." e.e.cummings

this is the most exciting news since that pirate hit the sausage at the brewers game

Well If they can't handle it better keep the kids in kiddie land, but isn't that the point of some rides to totally scare riders or atleast make their heart pound a bit? If they stop a ride everytime someone freaks out that'd make the lines move slower and slow lines pisses more people off, in the long run its not practical, what would she of had to say if they were on a coaster halfway up the lift, would she still of been upset they didnt let her and her daughter off the ride. If she sues now that would be a travisty. But come I can see in kiddie land if a kids freakin they let them off but when it comes to more adult rides oh well you can get off when the ride is over. All I can say Is moron, they must have a well in the yard laced with lead!

But read it again, Fxnib... not just "freakin" out... undoing a belt. While the belt is not technically needed to keep the OTSR down (as stated so many times before), it is there and therefore should be secure. As Spirit in the Sky put it... "If a 10 year old unbuckling her restraints on a 250 foot tall ride is not a safety issue then what is? Does one have to be hanging from the seat before it is considered dangerous?"

A kid screaming "I want off!" is one thing (like you said, in kiddie land they would stop a ride for that.) A kid on a 200 ft tower with the thought in their brain that "They want off" and they actually undo part of the restraints... that's another story. E-stops are installed for a reason. Again, as Spirit in the Sky said... do you wait until the kid is hanging from the seat to stop it?