Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 145 posts

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#61

Post by fezz »

crazypyro wrote: post #32
teraflop wrote: post #4

The full indictment [1] is well worth reading. The most relevant sections for HN, in my opinion: > 35. [Designer Jeffrey] HENRY compared the construction of Verrückt to an arms race against rival waterparks. > 37. HENRY admitted that he was ignoring established industry safety standards because he felt he could redefine those standards with his own achievements. While describing his vision of how Verrückt would chang…

edit: The owner was arrested just today, so I had missed that. Can someone explain why they are charging the 29 year old director of operations who started as a lifeguard and had no formal training or connection to engineering/design and not one of the designers or owners, both of which are mentioned in the indictment multiple times? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me other than they needed to charge someone.

"Schlitterbahn co-owner Jeff Henry arrested in Texas on Verruckt-related charges"

http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#62

Post by crazypyro »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #59
crazypyro wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its likely that its an easier case to prove, but they are charging him with some things that take quite a high bar to prove. For instance, the involuntary manslaughter charge is going to be hard to proof when the evidence that he was planning on going on the ride the same day is presented. They have to prove recklessness which includes proving the person knew their actions were likely to cause harm. Also wort…

Running it with a broken safety feature isn't recklessness? I think it is. Also gross negligence. (IANAL, though. Legal definitions of those words may not match my intuitive understanding of them...)

Disclaimer: This isn't legal advice.

The legal definition of recklessness requires that the person know (or should know) that the ride is dangerous. Legally, it is more difficult to prove when that person took actions that suggest they did not think it was dangerous.

To your point about broken safety features:

One could potentially even argue that the brake isn't a safety feature. It could be there to help riders that are scared of going too fast to more easily control their speed, simply for their own enjoyment. I don't think that use of the brake would be required under normal operations and therefore, it could be argued that the brake wasn't a safety feature. I personally don't think it makes sense that a "safety" feature is optional and relies on the rider, but I could be wrong. The designers were certainly negligent in other ways....

Not sure if that follows or if it makes any more sense to you, but legally, its a potential argument.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#63

Post by crazypyro »

theresistor wrote: post #58
crazypyro wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its almost like completely different problems have completely different design constraints... There are plenty of "real" engineers who design stuff that have very little safety implications, such as optimizing electrical boards or minimizing costs in manufacturing.

Poor choice of example. "Electrical boards", aka PCBs, have a lot of safety requirements, and poorly designed ones are often implicated in electrical and battery fires.

Fair enough, I had trouble coming up with concrete examples. I do think there are plenty of engineering situations where safety isn't a major concern though.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#64

Post by JBlue42 »

sbarre wrote: post #3

Ugh, it says they rushed the design and build in order to impress a Travel Channel show/producer.. (Not putting this at the feet of the TV channel, just so insanely wrong priorities on the part of the park)

Seems similar to the one who shot and killed her boyfriend (husband?) in front of their kid for a YouTube prank.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#65

Post by munificent »

itronitron wrote: post #8
willglynn wrote: post #5

From the indictment: 19. HENRY and SCHOOLEY lacked the technical expertise to properly design a complex amusement ride such as Verrückt. Neither of the two men possessed any kind of technical or engineering credential relevant to amusement ride design or safety. As SCHOOLEY admitted, "If we actually knew how to do this, and it could be done that easily, it wouldn't be that spectacular." Full text: http://www.kansasci…

so basically, they were doing water slide _research_ instead of water slide _engineering_

"Disrupting the water slide economy."

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#66

Post by ams6110 »

justherefortart wrote: post #41
duskwuff wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy shit. This is some Action Park [1] level irresponsibility here. A few other horrifying details: * Riders were restrained by Velcro straps. These frequently came loose. One rider broke several toes after his restraint came undone during a ride, forcing him to dig his feet into the corners of the raft. * The brake system on the ride was completely nonfunctional when the boy was killed, and had been that way for se…

My dad rode a cliffhanger type of slide at Action Park in the mid 80s. It had a plastic covering about 1/2 way down so you couldn't "fall off" the slide. I'm still amazed to this day he did it because he's afraid of heights. It was easily 50' high. Fortunately, the only downside was it was like getting an enormous enema. Those sled things that went down the concrete track, everyone has scars from those. Great memorie…

Fond memories of childhood visits to a local "flume" ride, essentially a long concrete-lined ditch dug in a switchback pattern down a big hillside. Painted to make it slick, and they pumped a continuous stream of water all along it. You rode it by sitting or lying on foam mats, about 3x4 feet in size.

A ton of fun, you could get going pretty fast and you definitely wanted to have your legs crossed when you hit the pool at the bottom. Never heard of anyone getting hurt though, other than some mild abrasions if you slipped off the mat -- the concrete wasn't totally smooth. The curves were pretty steeply banked and the most you could really do if you went over the side was end up in underbrush.

Terrible that adults who should know better are making rides without apparent regard for safety of the (mostly) kids that will be riding them. Those elevated trough rides do worry me, they really need to be fully enclosed anywhere there is any chance of going airborne or over the edge.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#67

Post by ams6110 »

crazypyro wrote: post #53
Maybestring wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Evidence suggests that the park planned to delay maintenance until the park closed for the season. When a safety feature was out of service, they decided to keep running it. That sounds like a director of operations decison. And much easier case to prove than design deficiency.

I think its likely that its an easier case to prove, but they are charging him with some things that take quite a high bar to prove. For instance, the involuntary manslaughter charge is going to be hard to proof when the evidence that he was planning on going on the ride the same day is presented. They have to prove recklessness which includes proving the person knew their actions were likely to cause harm. Also wort…

Prosecutors will often start with very serious charges, then lower them in exchange for cooperation against the people they are really after.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#68

Post by ams6110 »

slg wrote: post #28
willglynn wrote: post #5

From the indictment: 19. HENRY and SCHOOLEY lacked the technical expertise to properly design a complex amusement ride such as Verrückt. Neither of the two men possessed any kind of technical or engineering credential relevant to amusement ride design or safety. As SCHOOLEY admitted, "If we actually knew how to do this, and it could be done that easily, it wouldn't be that spectacular." Full text: http://www.kansasci…

>"If we actually knew how to do this, and it could be done that easily, it wouldn't be that spectacular." The same logic applies for a majority of cryptocurrency and gig economy startups.

Most of which don't put lives at risk.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#69

Post by some_random »

Given that it killed someone in such a violent and (at least in retrospect) predictable way, I would certainly hope that it failed to conform to "basic design standards".

That said, this definitely falls into that insidious category of failures, those that hurt people consistently, but not enough to raise any unlowerable eyebrows. That is, until something like this happens, and someone dies.

Re: Water Slide That Decapitated Boy Violated Basic Design Standards

#70

Post by technofiend »

codezero wrote: post #47
TylerE wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really true. They had been building and operating rides with similar mechanics (e.g. uphill sections with boosters) for years. They opened the original Master Blaster ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e2p6Qw4yIE ) in 1996.

Fair point, I guess the question then remains: were they qualified to build those either?

I can only share my personal experience but I was lofted into the air and then slammed down so hard I was worried for my safety on one of their rides in Galveston. It's too bad they didn't swallow their pride and acknowledge the fact they were successful enough that their newer rides needed engineering oversight instead of layperson guesswork.
Post reply on HN