Report on Boy Who Died on Mission: Space

[crusader]

No, Disney does not get blamed by the public when a guest does something stupid. A guest died when he got out of the Splash vehicle. A boy nearly died when he got out of Roger Rabbit. The public expressed no outrage at these incidents, though as I said, the courts do, and as a result Disney made changes.

You said a heck of a lot more than that. You stated the public would penalize Disney over a situation described at M:S.

It's simply not true.

 

[raidermatt]

Its not that you do something to prevent it, its that you have to consider what you are doing to aggrevate it.

On the question of intensity, more goes into it than just the g's. Since we are talking about a ride with a lot of visual elements, those have to be considered as well, since they have an impact on the rider's physical reaction. (refer back to the gravitron vs. M:S example). That impact will vary greatly from person to person.

Also, remember the height requirement on this vs. those coasters.

The TL and M:S incidents are very different on a very fundamental level. The girl's condition at TL was not aggrevated by anything that was happening to her at TL. We can all agree that laying down and then getting up to walk can be done anywhere. She didn't die on any kind of ride. She was just hanging out by the water, something we all do. She wasn't on a spaceflight simulator.

The M:S experience, combined with the boy's pre-exisitng condition caused his death. And yes, there are any number of other experiences that could have had the same result, but still it contributed far more to the boy's death than TL did to the girl's.

Now, once again, this is not to say Disney is "responsible" in any way shape or form. But with hundreds of people coming into the park every year with this condition, don't you agree it would be prudent to know how the ride will impact them? Sure, Disney can stand these incidents occasionally without suffering any consequences, but certainly we agree there is a point at which that changes, and that once that point is reached, its too late to backtrack.

And, again, I'm not saying they haven't done enough. Only that they need to make sure they do.

 

[DancingBear]

...as a business manager, I wouldn't be able to ignore the fact that it did happen on M:S when it had been open just over a year, and had not happened on those other two rides despite well over 100 years of combined operation.

This is where you lose me, Matt. If the experts say this could have just as easily happened on Space Mountain or Big Thunder, then it seems to me that, as a business manager, you'd have to think that, statistically "We've been a bit lucky on Space Mountain and Big Thunder, and unlucky on M:S." Which means you either need to question all of the rides which could cause a death like this, or none of them.

 

[peter11435]

This is where you lose me, Matt. If the experts say this could have just as easily happened on Space Mountain or Big Thunder, then it seems to me that, as a business manager, you'd have to think that, statistically "We've been a bit lucky on Space Mountain and Big Thunder, and unlucky on M:S." Which means you either need to question all of the rides which could cause a death like this, or none of them.

 

[DancingBear]

The ugly fact is that it’s up to Disney to figure out how many of those 600 people will die as “just one of those things”. The auto industry, and the public, through the decades have seem to come to a agreement about the level of safety for cars – one that has changed drastically over the years.

True, which is why the "even one death is too many" statements that you often see when bad things happen (not just here on the DIS) is just not realistic. The link says death from this condition is "typically is associated with sports or vigorous exertion...." That seems to imply that not only the various rides we have discussed, but the water parks, and even the resort pools, might be called into question. Or for that matter tromping around MK for a full day in late July. If that's the case, I think you quickly get to this is "just one of those things."

 

[Another Voice]

…which is why the "even one death is too many" statements that you often see when bad things happen (not just here on the DIS) is just not realistic…

I think the public is sophisticated enough to make a call as to what’s realistic (with the occasional panicked reaction from time to time). Certainly even you would agree the “not one death” standard should be applied to the maintenance and operation an attraction. There should never be an attitude that “things break, there’s nothing you can do about it” (although I’ve sadly read many posts by alleged “true fans” that say exactly that).

As for the design of an attraction – like I said it’s an area with no right or wrong answer. Disney is responsible for determining the level of risk they are going to put their patrons in.

That is what is so troubling about ‘Mission: Space’. It is a ride system that subjects guest to forces where very little experience exists. As a themed ride, it will attract more people and a different type of person than otherwise ride such an attraction – the average patron at Epcot Center riding ‘M:S’ is going to be much different than the average guest at a Six Flags park riding the ‘Super Mega Coaster of Flaming Extreme Death – Unleashed!’. Yet the two rides put both groups under equal stresses.

The fact that this happened both so soon after ‘M:S’ opened, and after a substantially higher than anticipated rate of guests becoming ill and even requiring medical attention is why the caution has gone up. That’s why this incident is different than the incidicent at the water park (because people already understand swimming is a strenuous activity) or at ‘The Tower Terror’ (which has operated for a decade without a history of injuries or worse).

Maybe this was an unfortunate occurrence, but then again maybe this is a trend. There’s no way for knowing for sure.

So it’s a judgment call how you and Disney treat it. Do you err on the side of being extra cautious or do you gamble people’s lives that it won’t happen again soon?

 

[DancingBear]

I think the public is sophisticated enough to make a call as to what’s realistic (with the occasional panicked reaction from time to time). Certainly even you would agree the “not one death” standard should be applied to the maintenance and operation an attraction. There should never be an attitude that “things break, there’s nothing you can do about it” (although I’ve sadly read many posts by alleged “true fans” that say exactly that).

Absolutely agreed.

As for the design of an attraction – like I said it’s an area with no right or wrong answer. Disney is responsible for determining the level of risk they are going to put their patrons in.

That is what is so troubling about ‘Mission: Space’. It is a ride system that subjects guest to forces where very little experience exists. As a themed ride, it will attract more people and a different type of person than otherwise ride such an attraction – the average patron at Epcot Center riding ‘M:S’ is going to be much different than the average guest at a Six Flags park riding the ‘Super Mega Coaster of Flaming Extreme Death – Unleashed!’. Yet the two rides put both groups under equal stresses.

Agreed, in that, as I said, it is an open question as to whether Disney has done enough research in to this question. We really don't know what they've done (although we might find out in the course of the court actions). It's not clear to me from poking around the internet just how much anybody knows about the effects of the G forces in the current generation of theme park/amusement park attractions.

Also agreed, as we've discussed before, that Disney has different issues to face because of the nature of its target market. There are undoubtedly more folks wandering onto this ride and not taking the warnings seriously than are wandering onto the tallest and fastest coasters at Cedar Point. As we've also discussed, the nature of the ride may also affect the analysis because it's relatively small and contained and doesn't have the visceral effect as you walk up to it that the Cedar Point Death Plunge does.

The fact that this happened both so soon after ‘M:S’ opened, and after a substantially higher than anticipated rate of guests becoming ill and even requiring medical attention is why the caution has gone up. That’s why this incident is different than the incidicent at the water park (because people already understand swimming is a strenuous activity) or at ‘The Tower Terror’ (which has operated for a decade without a history of injuries or worse).

You're starting to lose me here. Again, when the death happened, that was certainly a reason for the caution to go up. Now that we know the cause of death, it doesn't seem like this death is reason in itself to open a major review.

As to the water park comparison, it may be true that the general public will more readily accept an unexpected death due to someone's exertions while getting thrown around by 6-foot waves at Typhoon Lagoon, but that's an issue of the risk of adverse publicity, not of the risk of death (you're still gambling with the guests' lives).

Maybe this was an unfortunate occurrence, but then again maybe this is a trend. There’s no way for knowing for sure.

So it’s a judgment call how you and Disney treat it. Do you err on the side of being extra cautious or do you gamble people’s lives that it won’t happen again soon?

But, again, if you take as a given that this could have happened on Space Mountain or Tower of Terror or Big Thunder, then keeping those rides open is also "gambling people's lives."

It's a tough thing for people to say out loud, but ultimately the decision is that, although over the course of time some people may die on [insert attraction here] due to their hidden health problems, it's not worth giving up Big Thunder, Space Mountain, big waves at TL, etc.

 

[raidermatt]

This is where you lose me, Matt. If the experts say this could have just as easily happened on Space Mountain or Big Thunder, then it seems to me that, as a business manager, you'd have to think that, statistically "We've been a bit lucky on Space Mountain and Big Thunder, and unlucky on M:S." Which means you either need to question all of the rides which could cause a death like this, or none of them.

Here's what I know from both my own experience, and also from reading/observing other situations:

1- My data, which admittedly could be an anomoly, tells me its more likely I've got an issue with M:S than any other ride.

2- My data, IF it can be used for extrapolation, tells me I could have an issue with M:S that would cause me a world of hurt eventually. True, accurate extrapolation is not a given, but then again, just from the data, I don't really know if it over or understates the risk.

3- Expert opinions, while a valuable data point, are not the definitive end to the story. Maybe they are right, and odds are we won't have another incident on M:S for 125 years. But there is a chance, especially given the uniqueness of this attraction in the theme park industry, that they are mistaken. We've all seen it happen.

4- The consequences to me and my company if they are wrong could be significant, given the investment I've made in the attraction and my parks in general.

5- Because of the expert opinions, and data that isn't screaming SHUT IT DOWN, I feel confident enough to keep the attraction open while I research/validate. I'm also not going to disclose what I'm doing to the public. So there is no negative publicity or operational impact.

So, I'm going to go back and do some double-checking, research into this specific condition and perhaps conditions like it and how this attraction affects those with the condition, etc.

I'm not stopping any existing attraction, or holding up any development. I just want to do some validation.

Again, I'm ultimately responsible, not the panel of experts who looked at this or provided commentary. If they turn out to be wrong, well, they applied their knowledge as best they could, and were all wrong and they will learn from it. If I'm wrong, and I do no further research just to save a few bucks (and few is truly the case here, releatively speaking), I've got a little more to lose. I get paid to make these decisions, not them.

Now, you're right, that I'm assuming that the risk is greater that the M:S data is valid, as opposed to all of the other data being invalid and that we've been lucky during the 120 some odd years of operation of SM and BTMRR (and more if we start looking at our other thrill rides).

But that's because that's what the data says. Even though its certainly not a valid sample size, it does suggest M:S requires a closer look.

With those other rides, I've got both data AND experts telling me I'm fine. I've also got other roller coasters running all over place, both in my own parks and in others, many far more intense than what I've got. What I don't have, are other spaceflight simulators in use by the general public, and certainly not any running millions of people through them.

So yes, its a judgement call, but regardless of where the line is drawn, the risk that SM and BTMRR have issues is still less than M:S having issues. At best, if the experts are right and the data is an anomoly, the risks appear to be equal. I just can't count on the best all the time.

So again, I'm going to do that reserch and validation. The price is small, and the potential benefit is huge.

 

[raidermatt]

Now that we know the cause of death, it doesn't seem like this death is reason in itself to open a major review.

Does what I'm descibing qualify as a major review?

It's a tough thing for people to say out loud, but ultimately the decision is that, although over the course of time some people may die on [insert attraction here] due to their hidden health problems, it's not worth giving up Big Thunder, Space Mountain, big waves at TL, etc.

We might be talking about two different things. Obviously, from a relative risk pov, a guest has much more to worry about than the risk they will die on one of these attractions.

But that's different from the Disney pov. We saw all the publicity that came out of the incidents that ocurred in a relatively short period of time, so the line for Disney to consider is much finer than that which a guest should consider.

 

[crusader]

Comeon Matt -

You honestly don't think a comprehensive review was done around the time the tragedy occurred?

That's highly unlikely.

 

[raidermatt]

Assuming the lowest rate of occurrence of the “undiagnosed medical condition” sighted, 0.005%, means statistical 600 people with that condition went to Epcot last year based on the attendance level.

Not all that important I guess, but at 9 million per year, .0005% would be 4500 people wouldn't it? Some of those would be the same person entering multiple times, of course.

 

[raidermatt]

You honestly don't think a comprehensive review was done around the time the tragedy occurred?

Geez...

I never said it wasn't.

I said it may have been done or was being done.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't done, only that it should be done.

Some said that this report completely ends the issue, and I said that a review should still be done, and that maybe it already has. The only thing this report should change is that perhaps they should do some research into how M:S impacts guests with this condition.

But I never said they didn't do a review, only that they should. Its that idea that has been disputed.

 

[airlarry!]

Disney builds roller coasters. But coasters have been around since the turn of the century.

Disney builds high speed adventure rides. But these have been around forever.

Disney builds spinning rides, which have also been around since the dawn of the carnival age.

Disney builds drop rides, again, we've been riding on drop rides for decades.

Then ETC comes up with this new system. It is touted by Disney and ETC as a new type of ride system. People scoff when we call it Teacups 5.0 or Mission:Spinner, right here on the DIS, because 'its not just a spinner, its a highly sophistacated new ride system that will knock the pixie dust off of you.'

But when the Parrot Extraordinaire questions whether enough testing was done on this system both before AND after a death occurs within the first two years of operation, he's being extreme?

Hmm.

And when ETC files a lawsuit stating in no uncertain terms that Disney did not listen to its advice on safety, ETC is doing this for money?

Hmm.

I like Matt's point here. Disney wants to use 'cutting edge' technology on a new ride system that does new things to people, fine. But live with the consequences if something happens.

Not saying Disney caused this death, don't get me wrong. But no one, not no one, has shown that Disney knew enough about this system to proclaim that it was safe for all or that their safety warnings are adequate. There is absolutely no problem with questioning Disney's record here or wondering if it had taken all of the steps necessary to ensure that this particular event would not happen.

(P.S. DB, aren't you extrapolating a whole lot of inference from a short blurb? Are you really ready to assure us that this young man could have died, within a reasonable medical certainty, by swimming or riding Splash mountain? Wow!)

Disney cannot have its mickey headed butter and eat it too. Disney can't declare it a brand new whiz bang super system, and yet not adequately test it. What bugs me is that we will probably never the know the truth of ETC's claims that Disney ignored their demands regarding the project.

 

[Another Voice]

Now that we know the cause of death, it doesn't seem like this death is reason in itself to open a major review.

Actually, I think it argues the exact opposite. Now that we know that this ride can cause a fatal level of stress in a segment of the population – a small segment, but one that will still number between 6,000 and 24,000 people a year*. Given number of people, and assuming that roughly the same percentage come through year after year – why have there not been similar levels of “incidents” on ‘Space Mountain’, ‘Thunder’ and the like. Why did ‘Mission: Space’ produce this result in two years, when similar incidents have only happened twice in the three decades that ‘Space Mountain – Disneyland’ has been operating?**

Sure, it might be a fluke occurrence – but do you really want to take that chance with young children? Especially when it’s likely that ‘M:S’ will have more younger children riding it than a roller coaster? Kids understand going fast, the darkness and drops in ‘Space Mountain’, but ‘Mission: Space’ doesn’t seem so scary from the outside. Plus the forces on ‘M:S’ are prolonged compared to the very short bursts you get on a coaster.

In short, there’s lot of experience with people on roller coasters, but very little with the general public spinning about for minutes under the same stresses. That, to me, requires that you treat the attraction very differently until you can build up a similar level of knowledge and confidence.

You honestly don't think a comprehensive review was done around the time the tragedy occurred?

No, there wasn’t. There was a mechanical check to see if the ride equipment was functioning normally (it was) and the attraction was open the next day. Prior to opening, the attraction was inspected by an engineer from the Florida Department of Agriculture (the department that oversees amusements parks). The company that actually designed the attraction, and only company that had any experience with effects of these stresses on people (namely of people training to become military pilots) was fired by Disney and barred from the project. Disney completed the design and construction on their own, the original design company filed a suit over the termination and alleged that Disney was placing the safety of their guests at risk.

It's a tough thing for people to say out loud, but ultimately the decision is that, although over the course of time some people may die on [insert attraction here] due to their hidden health problems, it's not worth giving up Big Thunder, Space Mountain, big waves at TL, etc.

You’re absolutely correct and it is a very difficult thing to say. But that is exactly the line that Disney has to draw.




* You’re right Mr. Raidermatt. It went back and checked the medical document. The actual rate of this affliction is higher than I remembered reading: from 0.05% to 0.2% of the population. I also assume 12 million visitors to Epcot.

** My extreme shaky memory recalls there have two similar incidents at Disneyland. In both cases circumstances forced both guests to go through the ride a second time. One case resulted in a the guest having a heart attack on the ride, but in the second case the heart attack did not occur until day(s) later. Again, this is just my recollection.

 

[raidermatt]

Just to be clear, up to now, I haven't really brought up the idea of whether or not Disney actually did enough testing/research or not.

I've only said that the death should have pushed them to further whatever efforts they had already done, and that the report doesn't change that, other than to give them something specific to look into.

Now, I have my doubts about how far they went with their research. Note- that doesn't meant they didn't do any, or even that they didn't do a whole lot. Just that I have my doubts about whether they did enough.

But other than to state that, and agree with the points made by Larry, I'm not really looking to get into a debate on that because there's no way that will be resolved.

I've just been very surprised that many object to the idea that this incident should have pushed Disney to further efforts, while at the same time others have objected to even the hint that they didn't do so.

 

[crusader]

Some said that this report completely ends the issue, and I said that a review should still be done, and that maybe it already has.

Well this is the first time you're actually adhering to the possibility that enough assessment may have already been done in this case. My points to you are exactly that - and given that scenario, then these findings would completely end the issue.

No, there wasn’t. There was a mechanical check to see if the ride equipment was functioning normally (it was) and the attraction was open the next day. Prior to opening, the attraction was inspected by an engineer from the Florida Department of Agriculture (the department that oversees amusements parks).

You're seriously trying to minimize this. First of all, when you say "mechanical check" you fail to explain that this entails a thorough inspection of the mechanics, which is an absolute given here to determine if there is a problem with the ride operation itself or some other mechanical failure.

Besides that, safety and mechanical checks were routinely performed daily.


Then you make it seem as if nothing else was done. In other words, according to you, nobody from Disney's management performed a comprehensive review of every single relevant report associated with this attraction - past and present.

Yeah, they're so lax, the company just lets the State in and hands over every report requested, sight unseen.

The company that actually designed the attraction, and only company that had any experience with effects of these stresses on people (namely of people training to become military pilots) was fired by Disney and barred from the project. Disney completed the design and construction on their own, the original design company filed a suit over the termination and alleged that Disney was placing the safety of their guests at risk.

Firing ETC is irrelevant here. To imply that they didn't provide any data on the effects of stress during their involvement with the Company is nonsense. Of course they're going to assert in a lawsuit there is a risk to their not being involved in the entire project - otherwise they have no argument for being allowed back in beyond breach of contract.

Here's an old recap of this case:

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2003/08/04/story1.html

And they have yet to prevail.

 

[DancingBear]

We're really not much in disagreement here.

First, I have no problem with Matt's proposed review; it's just not clear to me that this death in particular, given what we now know (and, yes, Larry, making a few assumptions about this condition), that this death changes the analysis all that much.

In fact, as I've stated before, I think not only Disney but the entire amusement industry needs to do more research on the effects of thrill rides, which are becoming more and more extreme. From what we've been able to see around the web, it does not appear that there has been a whole lot of research in these areas. While it's true, Larry, that coasters have been around for a hundred years, the Coney Island Rattletrap doesn't put a body through near the exertion that the Magic Mountain Mindtwister does. I've got a son almost the same age as the boy who died on M:S; I'd like to have more comfort about the forces he's being exposed to.

Also, I agree with A-V's posts in other threads that Disney should be focused mostly on great immersive ways to tell stories and entertain than on strictly providing an adrenaline rush.

I'm interested in what happens with the ECS case, but having read the court papers that are available, I think there's a good chance that the safety allegations have been thrown out there by ECS because they know it's a hot button for Disney and gets media attention. A-V has summarized ECS's allegations fairly. Disney's position is that it discovered as the contract was carried out that ECS substantially oversold its expertise (including both in design and in the medical effects areas) and Disney had to exercise its rights to get ECS out of the way in order to get the project done (which still was something like 40% over the budget/contract cost if I remember correctly).

(P.S. DB, aren't you extrapolating a whole lot of inference from a short blurb? Are you really ready to assure us that this young man could have died, within a reasonable medical certainty, by swimming or riding Splash mountain? Wow!)

Yes, for the purpose of the discussion, I've made some assumptions which, as I stated earlier, would need to be verified with the medical experts. However, I think it's a fairly reasonable assumption that a youngster fighting the 6-foot waves at TL could experience the sort of "sports or vigorous exertion" that the medical link says that sudden death is often linked to.

We might be talking about two different things. Obviously, from a relative risk pov, a guest has much more to worry about than the risk they will die on one of these attractions.

But that's different from the Disney pov. We saw all the publicity that came out of the incidents that ocurred in a relatively short period of time, so the line for Disney to consider is much finer than that which a guest should consider.

I certainly understand that Disney has to consider both (1) are we within acceptable limits (morally, legally, etc.) of putting our guests at risk of injury or death, and (2) are we risking unacceptable bad publicity from injuries or deaths which are within those limits but which would still hurt our business?

But I think it's fairly clear that Disney has made this decision with respect to Space Mountain and Big Thunder and such. Again, it's not something anyone wants to speak of, but in fact the decision has been made to accept the statistical risk of guest's death from undiscovered medical conditions occurring on these attractions. That's why it's a bit of hyperbole (but very catchy) when A-V says Disney is "gambling with people's lives"--it's true, but really a truism.

The question is whether they are taking a bigger gamble with M:S than with Space Mountain. That question may remain unanswered, but, again, it doesn't seem like this death in particular makes that question any more (or less) urgent.

 

[crusader]

I'm interested in what happens with the ECS case, but having read the court papers that are available, I think there's a good chance that the safety allegations have been thrown out there by ECS because they know it's a hot button for Disney and gets media attention

I believe the judge dismissed the safety allegations in this order handed down in June 2005 - http://www.faulkner.edu/admin/websites/cemerson/documents/disneyetcmsjopinion.pdf

 

[crusader]

But no one, not no one, has shown that Disney knew enough about this system to proclaim that it was safe for all or that their safety warnings are adequate. There is absolutely no problem with questioning Disney's record here or wondering if it had taken all of the steps necessary to ensure that this particular event would not happen.

And you state this having exhausted all means of obtaining and deciphering the facts yourself. I think the relevance of why ETC did not counter Disney on the safety issue in this case, speaks volumes - don't you?

But here -

read up on the specs and tell me what Disney failed to do to support your insatiable cry for wrongdoing with respect to M:S.

http://www.machinedesign.com/ASP/viewSelectedArticle.asp?strArticleId=56322

 

[Another Voice]

Besides that, safety and mechanical checks were routinely performed daily. Then you make it seem as if nothing else was done.

No one has ever said the incident was caused by a mechiancal breakdown of the mechanisim. In fact, it was working fine – and that’s the important point.

Does ‘Mission: Space’, in its normal, daily operating mode, place a number of people at undo risk?

From all indications, Disney doesn’t know – they literally spun the wheel of fate an hoped for the best. The company that designed the attraction, ETC, only has knowledge through their years of building flight simulators. It’s rather obvious that those stresses that do not cause problems for twenty year old men in military shape – but how do you extend that to five year old children and sixty year old grandparents? Disney fired the people who might know.

Any ride is going to place a certain number of people at risk. I would like to find out how Disney determined the risks for this attraction, and how they judged those risks against its guests. The fact that Disney performed only a mechanical check and reopened the ride with only a terse statement that basically said “tough break kid” indicates they aren’t really interested.

That’s a far, far drop in standards from what they used to follow.


P.S. The article linked to in the post above is all about how Disney was going to prevent motion sickness on ‘Mission: Space’. Considering they had to put vomit bags in all the cabins and how clean-up of “protein spills” have caused significant operational issues on the attraction since opening day – you can only conclude that Disney failed miserably in this aspect of human engineering.

And if something this well known, this well studied, this well throught is harming Disney’s guests – what other problems exist?