Remote Ride Shut-Off?!!!

Monday, September 8, 2008 3:51 PM

Though I gotta side with Premier on this one, the fact that they have a remote back door into the ride seems risky to me. I know it's invaluable from a support standpoint, but one disgrunted Premier employee could cause some major havoc with tools like these...

I sure hope HRP can make it, but at this point I'd say it's safe to say that more than a few other parks are at least considering which rides they'd like to pillage.

Monday, September 8, 2008 4:20 PM

Well if it's on Screamscape, it must be true!

Monday, September 8, 2008 4:29 PM

I almost didn't post this one because I knew I would get that response...LOL!

But to their credit, I'd say they are 90-100% correct 80% of the time! (You can do the math on that one.)

This does make me quite interested in the CPU/PLC systems of modern rides though. I kind of figured they'd be pretty linear/redundant/failsafe, but it appears that they have the potential to be much more organic.

Last edited by Emiroo, Monday, September 8, 2008 4:32 PM
Monday, September 8, 2008 5:22 PM

I don't think that they would be able to override a block law. Even the park has to manually do that. But who's to say a disgruntled park employee wouldn't attempt it? I don't foresee it happening.

Monday, September 8, 2008 5:30 PM

 If they can't repo it, maybe this is their equivalent.

Monday, September 8, 2008 5:49 PM

I have no knowledge of this particular situation to say if the rumor is true or not, however, it absolutely is possible.

Many rides have modems and dedicated lines in the PLC's. It's entirely possible that if Premier is having payment problems that they could dial in to this coaster, verify that it is not in use, and either insert or remove code to make it unuseable. I've NEVER heard of any manufacturer or vendor doing this, but who's to say what stage of standoff these two companies are in?

Monday, September 8, 2008 9:18 PM

I always heard Intamin had this ability with the impulse coasters. Who pays for the internet connection? ;)

Monday, September 8, 2008 10:00 PM

Not the first I've heard of remote access to ride control systems. I'm reasonably sure I've heard of Intamin also having remote access. If this access includes taking/denying control of the ride or just monitoring I have no idea.

I think I read an interview with Stan Checkets a while back where he mentioned S&S rides being monitored from headquarters.

Last edited by Blue Side, Monday, September 8, 2008 10:00 PM
Monday, September 8, 2008 10:16 PM

I hacked HRP's coaster and I'm holding it ransom for gravy. Lots and lots of gravy.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 3:33 AM

If the S&S Double Shot at my park become stuck mid-air with guests on the ride, mechanics would call Utah for a remote diagnosis and repair. I'm pretty sure this is standard for all S&S towers. Though having full remote control of the ride computer never occurred to me. Maybe someone with more knowledge about this can chime in.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 7:10 AM

Having remote access is a standard across many industries. Having one tech being able to troubleshoot from miles away would be cheaper than airfair, rental cars, hotels, ect.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 1:26 PM

I will still always prefer hands on if I'm doing a repair. Unless something I'm working on is half-way around the world, then I might not be up to traveling that far for a headache.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 1:37 PM

I'll let others discuss the technology side of it, but even if it could be done, does it do any good? I mean Premier says you owe us money for our rides, so we're going to shut them down remotely so you can't operate them. So...

non-operating rides means fewer attractions,

which means fewer people in the park,

which means less revenue coming into the park,

which means less money available to pay the vendors.

So other than to say "we showed you" and maybe feeling better, how does this help Premier get what's owed them?

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 1:51 PM

It is the same as if you overdraw in your checking account and they charge you fees. It does not make logical sense, but they still do it.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 2:01 PM

I see what you guys are saying, but in both examples (the ride and the bank), what's the incentive to pay if there's no penalty for not doing so?

I mean, Premier already wasn't getting paid with the ride (kinda)operating. I imagine getting that ride running is a lot more important to HRP than getting the money is to Premier.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 4:17 PM

I get a funny feeling that laywers, courts, and tons of paperwork is going to surround this.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008 9:13 PM

^ Why would it? If you don't pay on your car, and they repo it, you don't have a right to sue them for it.

I don't know, I think it's pretty awesome that they can do that.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:12 AM

Well, they could just pay an electrician to cut the power with a lock THEY supply.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:13 AM

Raven-Phile said:
^ Why would it? If you don't pay on your car, and they repo it, you don't have a right to sue them for it.

I don't know, I think it's pretty awesome that they can do that.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

This may be the beginning of a whole new era of amusement parks. "Sorry, your credit is questionable. We'd be glad to build your ride for cash only..."

Wednesday, September 10, 2008 3:00 PM

Wouldn't it be illegal to use a "backdoor" like that for that purpose?


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC