Something odd from closing day...

Now that doesn't make sense at all!

I can see having both people check everybody. That puts four eyes and two brains on every seat. But to have one person check half the train twice? No offense to the ride hosts, but if someone isn't "all there" one cycle and misses something on the first pass, there's no reason to think he'll catch it on the second pass. If you're hoping to keep from overlooking anything, it seems it makes more sense to have two people check, not to have one person check twice.

But then, my original thesis is that the double check on Gemini is excessive and unnecessary, so... :)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Wow, that is pretty illogical. Two sets of eyes makes sense, I agree, but even that's overkill. Remember that a visual check happens as the train dispatches as well.

Aren't there also cameras on the lift (at least at MF) that allows the person in the booth to check again?

Jeff said:
Wow, that is pretty illogical. Two sets of eyes makes sense, I agree, but even that's overkill. Remember that a visual check happens as the train dispatches as well.

Assuming the hosts aren't hiding behind a pillar! :)

CP has done some strange things the past few years with procedures. I think the whole deal at MF started a few years back when they had a couple operationals. I am not sure if the double checking is written in the manual or not. I suspect it is not. At Gemini, the hosts used to just meet in the middle. Now each one checks the whole train. Real dumb that it needs to happen on some rides (Gmini, Maxair, Skyhawk), but not others.

...And you see what the real problem with this is.

Doing more checks makes some logical sense. Making Magnum operators stand back from the trains and away from the gates is a logical good idea. Putting the co-dispatch panels in the very strange places where they are located on Gemini and Magnum makes perfect sense from an engineering perspective, and seems logical on paper. The things we are seeing are, albeit sometimes in a warped and twisted way, logical improvements to ride safety.

The trouble is, how do you argue that doing more, checking more often, and all that other stuff does not make the ride any safer? When the number of incidents goes from a statistical zero to another statistical zero, you can't really say that you've not improved things any. You can't prove that the added precautions don't make the ride any safer...there is no way to know that. And it seems to be demonstrable that it does not make the ride any less safe. So you have people doing things that look like they might improve safety, not knowing for certain whether they do or not, and it's really hard to argue for not doing some added thing because that thing doesn't make the ride safer...because wouldn't not doing something make the ride more dangerous?

Never mind that double, triple, and quadruple checking of seat belts and lap bars, along with things like obstructed platform exits and operator controls in inconvenient locations, seem to be a leading cause of slow dispatches...and while it wasn't found to be the proximate cause of the one notable incident at the park this year, avoiding a slow dispatch would have prevented that same incident. It would not have prevented the mechanical failure, but it would have made the mechanical failure not matter.

It's an interesting exercise. What makes a ride "safer"? I was talking with a ride engineer not too long ago who explained how his ride was made *safer* because it *does not* have seat belts on it. He's absolutely correct, of course, but how many people actually believe that the odds of hurting people as a result of a collision are greater than the odds of somebody falling out of the ride?

The issue is risk management, and it seems that in some areas, the art and science of risk management have been replaced by good old-fashioned paranoia. And that's not necessarily a good thing.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I never thought about it like that. But, you're totally right. I never remember stacking on a coaster at Cedar Point while growing up. That's one of the things I loved about Cedar Point. It was soooooooo efficient. When going to other parks, we always commented on how no one else was as efficient.

But, it seems like stacking is now the norm on every coaster at Cedar Point. Running through all the coasters in my head from our trip this summer, I can only think of two that didn't stack. Wilcat and Disaster Transport.

Like you said, if you reduce the stacking, you reduce the chance of mechanical failure. Also, as far as I know, no one has ever fallen out of a coaster at Cedar Point. So, I'm not sure why they're so paranoid of it happening now. It seems their safety checks were always good before.

cedarpointlover said:
On Gemini, can the transfer track be used as a block, as well as the mid-course trims? I'm slightly confused on the blocking, and how three trains would operate safely.

The transfer track cannot be used as regular block. That area is flat, and if the brakes are set in that area, maintenance has to come out and push the train.

I remember the days when the ride ops just said "push up on your restraint bar to ensure that it is locked". No one came to pull up on the bar, it was only a quick a visual check. One crew on corkscrew in the early 80's was so fast that it hardly stacked with three train operation, I remember them doing about 5 or 6 trainloads without stacking and I was so impressed with their efficiency.

Tim, I agree about increasing the odds of mechanical failure from stacking. If Magnum wouldn't have stacked, they would not have crunched it last year.
*** Edited 12/4/2007 2:38:55 PM UTC by Pete***

Everyone makes very good point and I can see where everyone is coming from but you also have to remember that part of the problem is if we have guest difficulties. I not saying by anymeans that its all guests, far from it. Its just another factor in the matter. We as ride operators can do everything right and get our seats check and be ready to dispatch a train but if we have a slow guest, it will affect our operation.

Jeff had mentioned a few posts back that there is a double check with a visual as the train exits, and there was mention of the camera on the lift check...

As much as it would be nice to know that all employees at CP are that vigilant, I doubt that reality carries the perfect world logic, unfortunately.

Paranoia is exactly whats happening. A little rain causes a "collision" on Magnum, so apparently ALL rides will have collisions in the same amount of rain.

Maverick has over the shoulder restraints. Does this make the ride safer? No. If anything, it presents more of a physical problem for those who don't know how to sit right or hold on correctly to avoid ear/head injuries.

And I too, noticed the double-checking on a majority of rides...but on Skyhawk or Chaos? Are you serious? Cedar Point used to have some truly amazing records when it came to dispatch, but now, I don't know...