Drayton Manor Park - Splash Canyon Incident

[evilcod]

Regarding water depth/E-stop etc., I think it’s a fair assumption that with the ride running the girl would’ve been out of her depth in that section anyway, so increasing the depth further by stopping the pumps won’t have made that aspect any worse. What stopping the pumps would achieve is the removal of the quite extreme currents that they create (save, in fairness, for the initial moments where the pumps empty). So, I really don’t see how any action other than e-stopping could be justified as the best immediate course of action, once the situation is known.

There were kind of 2 separate points being made;

There was a suggestion by other posters that the ride should have been e-stopped when guests refused to sit down (prior to falling in), this instance is where I suggested this would not be the correct course of action.

The second was more of a suggestion that the action of e-stopping once the guest had fallen in wouldn't have actually helped in itself as some people seemed to think it would drain that area or lower the water level which is incorrect, but yes it would have to be done to stop the situation worsening.


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Themeparksandy1981]

I think on a rapids ride there is nothing you can do from the moment it leaves the platform to it gets to the end of the ride.
I been on the rapids when it broke down and the pumps cut off but you still float to the end of the ride.
There’s notices in the queueline, on the boats and all around the circuit.
Now we know she fell out the boat near the final corner and could easily have just stayed there even her teacher told her to stay where she was but she got it stuck in her mind she wanted to rejoin her friends back on the platform which resulted in her falling in the 12ft pump and drowning. Like the staff on the platform wouldn’t be trained how to save anyone from this part of the ride as It’s never happened before. Also been a first aider myself a risk assessment would have been put in place and it’s risking other people’s lives trying to save another but they could have warned the staff in the cabin to shut the pumps off.
With the CCTV I guess guests stand up all the time to not get wet and up to 21 boats is in use at all times so it’s hard to watch the cameras from ride open and close Everyday.

 

[Islander]

There were kind of 2 separate points being made;

There was a suggestion by other posters that the ride should have been e-stopped when guests refused to sit down (prior to falling in), this instance is where I suggested this would not be the correct course of action.

The second was more of a suggestion that the action of e-stopping once the guest had fallen in wouldn't have actually helped in itself as some people seemed to think it would drain that area or lower the water level which is incorrect, but yes it would have to be done to stop the situation worsening.


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

A fair summary - I hadn’t clocked that people would think that e-stopping would drain all the water from the whole flume, which of course it wouldn’t.

There’s definitely a general misconception amongst so many as to the mechanics of a rapids ride - the number of times I’ve seen guests walking past a stopped rapids in a morning, saying things like “ohh look, they’ve removed all the water, that won’t be running for weeks”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Doublethink]

There is also a misconception that since rapids are usual mild to moderate thrills that they are some of the safest rides in the park, actually they are probably the most dangerous due to the unpredictability of non restrained guests and the stupid levels of force behind running water. A grown man is knocked over by ankle deep water if it's moving at 6.7 mph, by knee depth at 4 mph, and waist depth at 2.6 mph.

 

[Rob]

Remember this is an inquest not a trial, the park are not being held responsible. I should imagine that the outcome of this inquest will pave the way for, if any, more H&S regulation on this type of ride.

Correct yes, this is an inquest. But the inquest is to be followed by a trial, the HSE are prosecuting Drayton Manor for one breack of the Health & Safety at Wok Act, so they feel that there is good evidence that Drayton Manor were liable for this tragic accident.

Like any accident though, this is a culmination of a series of unfortunate events. The children rode the rapids earlier in the day with a teacher and were well behaved, so maybe there was reason to beleive that they would be equally well behaved if they rode it again alone. The next time they rode it then they were messing about (standing up on the ride, moving seats, putting hands in the water), in the end this led to Evha falling out right at the end of the ride. This did not cause her death or even any injury, but if she had not fallen out then she would not have died. But then if an operator/other staff member had noticed that she and others had been standing all the way around the ride then maybe they could have made an annoucement that would have resulted in them sitting down, who knows.

Once she fell in to the water she tried to make her way out, as anyone would do. There was seemingly no-one on hand to really notice that she needed help. She made her way to the lift back up to the station, the wooden planks were apparently covered in algae so presumably very slippy. Is this maybe why she fell in to the much deeper run off pool of water? We do not know. Once she had fallen in here it took a relatively long time to find her, and she drowned.

If something different had happened at any one stage over the course of these events then her death could have been avoided. I think the HSE charge is going to relate to either Drayton's response to her falling in, or not having systems/polices in place to discourage standing up during the ride. We won't find that out until next year though.

It is very easy to say that it's her fault because she should not have been standing up during the ride. But kids will be kids and most of us will have done things we know that we should not have done, only we got away with it. I do personally think that they should have known better than to mess around to the extent that they did, but they were likely too young to fully appreciate the risk.

 

[Skyscraper]

If they'd had a teacher with them for that second ride it would never have happened.

 

[Benjsh]

Doesn't mean that they are save or comfortable. Imagine having to put on a wet seat belt? Like @Rick say's what the point in them if you can undo them yourself during a ride? The inquest will probably make some recommendations once it comes to a conclusion. I still don't think that seat belts are the answers and I've been riding the rapids for many years. The risk of falling out, even if you are standing up are very slim. However hanging over the side of the boat placing your hands into the water is beyond stupid.

They are the answer because unlike you and I.....some people simply can't behave and follow rules. You have to make rules to the lowest calibre of person unfortunately. That's kind of the same through all aspects of life too.

Whilst it's true that you could unclick the seatbelt it's definitely a deterrent and I don't think many people if any would. And they work well on other rapids rides as already discussed.

The other solution is to fit higher sides on the boat and a larger gate/door but then that totally defeats the purpose of the ride doesn't it?

 

[Themepark-newbie]

If they'd had a teacher with them for that second ride it would never have happened.

That's a very flippant comment but essentially correct. So, is it the fault of a) the school or B) the ride manufacturers / HSE who set the rules?

Remember, she was ALLOWED to go on the ride without adult by both the teachers and ride staff. The school and staff did not break any rules by allowing her to ride unaccompanied.

 

[imanautie]

That's a very flippant comment but essentially correct. So, is it the fault of a) the school or B) the ride manufacturers / HSE who set the rules?

Remember, she was ALLOWED to go on the ride without adult by both the teachers and ride staff. The school and staff did not break any rules by allowing her to ride unaccompanied.

The way I see it is the person who was acting on behalf of the parents (the teacher) was ok with her going on so Drayton had no reason to suspect otherwise.

Sent from my Swift 2 Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Rob]

The school/teachers are clearly not to blame. They followed the rules of the park and had appropriate risk assessments in place. I went to various theme parks on shcool trips and we did not have our hands held around the parks, we were allowed to do what we wanted to.

There will be no individual to blame either. Just like The Smiler incident where Merlin as an operator were liable, Drayton Manor as an operator will be found liable for this. It will come down to policy and procedure.

 

[Doublethink]

The school/teachers are clearly not to blame. They followed the rules of the park and had appropriate risk assessments in place. I went to various theme parks on shcool trips and we did not have our hands held around the parks, we were allowed to do what we wanted to.

There will be no individual to blame either. Just like The Smiler incident where Merlin as an operator were liable, Drayton Manor as an operator will be found liable for this. It will come down to policy and procedure.

A fine is almost guaranteed I would say question is are we looking at a £millions fine on the scale of smiler and can Drayton survive that financial blow

 

[DiogoJ42]

What I want to know is, why did she attempt to climb the lift conveyor itself, when there is a perfectly servicable catwalk right next to it? Was she on the wrong side? Or was it a case of "no one thinks straight in a panic"? And surely once she was on the conveyor, she wouldn't need to climb it at all, just hold on and let it do the work for her?
I really wish we could see the CCTV footage. It would answer so many questions.

 

[MiserableMonkey]

A fine is almost guaranteed I would say question is are we looking at a £millions fine on the scale of smiler and can Drayton survive that financial blow

Aren’t fines for businesses limited to a percentage of turnover? Enough to make a point, but not enough to send the company into bankruptcy. I believe this was one of the reasons Merlin was fined, opposed to Alton Towers Operations Ltd, so the fine could be increased as appropriate against the much larger relative turnover.

 

[AT86]

What I want to know is, why did she attempt to climb the lift conveyor itself, when there is a perfectly servicable catwalk right next to it? Was she on the wrong side? Or was it a case of "no one thinks straight in a panic"?

I suspect it would be a mixture of both.

The walkway is behind the fencing that guides the boats up the lift for quite some way before the lift starts. To someone in a panic who isn’t familiar with the set up of these things, they might not even see it’s there.

 

[DiogoJ42]

Good point, cheers for the image. Depending on where she fell in, there is only a 1/3 chance that she would be in the right place to reach the catwalk.

 

[MattyH]

Updates are continuing from day two

Evha was wearing a long black dress
A witness ran to the photobooth
Photobooth attendant didn't understand what she said so served a customer
Photobooth attendant then contacted Ride op to inform of person in water
It is difficult to monitor CCTV and the platform
Procedure is not to hit E-stop unless they witness someone fall in
If they don't witness it they call Control and search CCTV
Eight CCTV Cameras
CCTV does not cover the ride 100%

 

[AT86]

Link to ongoing updates here:

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/live-updates-inquest-death-leicester-3498525

Hearing from the ride op, it maybe unearthing some of the reasons for the HSE prosecution.

The worker has told the coroner about the difficulties of keeping an eye on both the rotating platform – where guests get on and off the ride – and the CCTV monitors.

Coroner Margaret Jones asked him: “Would it be right to say it was difficult to monitor?”

He replied: “I’d say it is difficult to do both – to monitor the platform and the CCTV.”

Mr Read said his operator’s booth is an octagonal structure in the centre of the rotating platform with the CCTV monitors, the public address system and various controls for the ride.

According to the worker, staff had an emergency stop button for the Splash Canyon ride, but were only meant to push if it they had seen someone fall into the water with their own eyes.

He said: “If we didn’t witness someone falling in to the water ourselves we would contact the park control and search the CCTV.”

Mrs Jones, the coroner, asked Mr Read how long it would take him to search all eight CCTV monitors to see if someone had fallen into the water.

He said: “It would take a minute or two to search all the cameras.”

He added that the eight cameras did not cover 100 per cent of the distance of the ride.

 

[RoyJess]

CCTV does not cover the ride 100%

From what I've been told a few weeks ago, this is where they might be fined for

 

[MattyH]

In the month before the incident, Drayton held a saftey meeting, at this meeting Ride ops requested another attendant on Splash Canyon to allow them to focus on the CCTV more and raised concerns about the size of the image on the CCTV system.

 

[Alastair]

So if they didn't witness anyone falling in, and then spent 1-2 minutes to look through all the CCTV footage - there was still a chance they might not find anything as the cameras might not cover that section?

Doesn't look great procedurally to be honest.