Woman Dies After Riding "Mission: Space"

[dbm20th]

I don't have the links so I'm going from memory, but the company that makes the centerfuge sued or is sueing Disney over various things. Its possible that all they are trying to accomplish is ensuring they get a cut of any future "clones" WDW builds. But in their claim, they say testing was not adequately done because Disney did not allow them to conduct/participate in the testing.

Is it in litigation now? In Florida?

 

[raidermatt]

I think that is the only coralation between M:S and these two deaths.

That of course is your perogative, but again, somebody dying unexpectedly in their bed has nothing to do with the impacts a theme park ride has on people.

You can say that you believe in extreme circumstances it may aggrevate pre-existing conditions, but that's acceptable to you. But at this point, we cannot say its PURELY coincidence, and no different than somebody dying when their alarm clock goes off.

 

[raidermatt]

Is it in litigation now? In Florida?

Here's a quick, probably outdated link. I'll see what else I can find.
Lawsuit

Designer Questioned Mission: Space's Safety, Testing
Suit Claims Disney Never Allowed Company To Conduct Final Safety Test

POSTED: 6:32 pm EDT June 15, 2005
UPDATED: 7:13 pm EDT June 15, 2005

ORLANDO, Fla. -- WESH 2 News has uncovered serious questions about the safety and testing of the ride Mission: Space.


Mission: Space's Designer Questioned Safety, Testing In Lawsuit

The questions come from the company that designed and built the attraction.


The questions are raised in a 2003 lawsuit filed by Entertainment Technology Corp., of Pennsylvania -- the company hired personally by Michael Eisner to design and build Mission: Space.

The bottom line -- ETC said Disney never allowed company engineers to conduct a final safety inspection for Mission: Space's before guests began riding it.

Mission: Space has been touted as one of the innovative, realistic and exciting rides of all time. It's a space flight simulator, which spins guests fast enough to create the feeling of weightlessness in space.

ETC designed and built Mission: Space, so who better to answer questions about the attraction's safety? But now, WESH 2 News has obtained a 2003 federal lawsuit questioning the ride's safety and the suit was filed by ETC claiming "Disney refuses to allow ETC to participate in the safety testing and analysis" as outlined in its contract.

ETC claims Disney prevented their engineers from conducting final safety tests on the ride. The lawsuit also claims Disney took over responsibilities for the completion of the attraction after the project fell behind schedule.

The pending lawsuit says, "If ETC is prevented from using its years of experience with human centrifuge systems to participate in the safety testing and analysis ... then there are increased risks of injury to the public at-large."

Despite those concerns, Mission: Space opened to the public and has been operating since 2003. More than 8 million guests have ridden it, and Disney engineers say it is operating normally. The ride was back open Wednesday.

"I think it's a safe ride. I've ridden it personally," said Jerry Aldrich, an expert in amusement park rides. He also worked for Disney for 27 years.

WESH 2 News asked him about the lawsuit's claims, specifically whether this is a safety issue.

"No, I don't believe so. I don't see where that's founded," he said.

The lawsuit asks for millions of dollars in damages and an order allowing ETC to inspect Mission: Space to assure that it is safe.

Disney has counter-sued, alleging failures in ETC's performance and design. Because of that, neither side will talk to WESH 2 News about the pending lawsuit.

ETC also has a financial agenda. The lawsuit also alleges that Disney failed to honor a $26 million contract. It asks for $15 million in damages.

 

[FigNewton]

I have a question for those of you who are defending M:S by attributing the deaths to the "wrong place, wrong time"--essentially saying that they would have died soon anyway---

If M:S were a Universal attraction , or a Six Flags attraction would you be defending it ? I really doubt it. I think that if M:S were at Six Flags over Georgia these boards would be full of posts calling for a shutdown. For some reason when it comes to Disney some people get so protective--- it couldn't possibly be Disney's fault !

I agree with the earlier post--I think if people were dying on the Jungle Cruise or Peter Pan, you would have a much better argument that it's just bad timing.

In my case you would be wrong. You can doubt that all you like, because I have no clue what I could say to convince you of that.

If a ride is inherently dangerous, or is malfunctioning, shut it down.

If a death results from someone having a pre-existing condition, whether known or unknown, that's not a reason to shut it down. Every thrill ride has warnings on it instructing those with medical conditions not to ride. That alone is enough to tell you that thrill rides and some medical conditions can be a BAD MIXTURE. Any time you get on a thrill ride and put your body under stress, there is a risk that you have an undiagnosed medical condition which if you knew about would prevent you from getting on that ride. For ANY ride, not just M:S.

 

[DancingBear]

My recollection is that the safety allegations have been dismissed in the lawsuit; I'll try to find the reference.

The whole amusement industry needs to investigate further the effects of the stresses they are creating as rides push the limits further and further. M:S creates G forces which are substantially less than many roller coasters, but they are sustained for a much longer period.

Also as A-V has pointed out, despite all of the posted warnings, M:S doesn't have that "I'm not getting on that darn thing" effect that the biggest and fastest coasters do.

 

[raidermatt]

My recollection is that the safety allegations have been dismissed in the lawsuit; I'll try to find the reference.

Now that you mention it, that sounds right. The only thing I'd say though is that its still not good PR, given what's happened. Having no legal basis does not always = truth.

I also agree that this is not just an issue for Disney of course. But as the "big guy", they fall under the greatest scrutiny, and have the most to lose. As AV also has pointed out, they also generally attract a different crowd than the rest of the amusement industry, which also makes their situation unique.

If a death results from someone having a pre-existing condition, whether known or unknown, that's not a reason to shut it down.

In some cases, yes, it is. The first question is whether this ride exceeds what is "acceptable". The second question is what is "acceptable".

True, it says if you have "high blood pressure" for example, you shouldn't ride. But how high is high? What if your condition is undiagnosed, as it was with the boy? There most certainly are unacceptable levels of risk even for those with pre-existing conditions. We all know that some will ignore the warnings, feel that they are still "ok", or are simply undiagnosed.

Again, its not a matter of if a ride could be shut down for aggrevating pre-existing conditions. That's a given. Its a question of whether this ride is exceeding acceptable risk levels and what those levels are.

 

[YoHo]

My recollection is that the safety allegations have been dismissed in the lawsuit; I'll try to find the reference.

The whole amusement industry needs to investigate further the effects of the stresses they are creating as rides push the limits further and further. M:S creates G forces which are substantially less than many roller coasters, but they are sustained for a much longer period.

Also as A-V has pointed out, despite all of the posted warnings, M:S doesn't have that "I'm not getting on that darn thing" effect that the biggest and fastest coasters do.

You are correct, it was dismissed, but then, OJ got away with murder too. (I understand these are not equivelent) My point is that the issue was raised. Whether it was considered relevent to the lawsuit doesn't really answer the question I have about the quality and quantity of testing that went into the ride.

I don't trust Disney in this situation. There were and are too many questions about this ride.

Maybe it turns out it's fine, but again, Due diligence.

 

[FigNewton]

In some cases, yes, it is. The first question is whether this ride exceeds what is "acceptable". The second question is what is "acceptable".

It's important to note that in that post I was detailing my position, in general, regardless of who runs the park. Read it as "I don't see that as a reason to shut it down."

Personally I think you have your questions backwards as we cannot determine if the levels are acceptable without first knowing what "acceptable" is.

In my mind, an acceptable level is that which a person in good health can endure without incurring lasting physical harm.

As for the second question, is this ride within acceptable limits, I'd say yes given the millions of rides it has given to no ill effect. Sure people have thrown up on or after it, but people throw up on all kinds of rides. Puking isn't a lasting physical harm.

True, it says if you have "high blood pressure" for example, you shouldn't ride. But how high is high?

Medicly? I'm not a doctor or a nurse, so I wouldn't know. I would say though, that anyone in a position to be worried about high blood pressure would have some idea what "high" is.

What if your condition is undiagnosed, as it was with the boy? There most certainly are unacceptable levels of risk even for those with pre-existing conditions.

I believe in personal responsibilty. If you believe yourself to be healthy, participate in something that is perfectly safe for a healthy person, and discover you are not healthy as a result, then the lack of knowlege is on you (or your guardian if you are under age).

We all know that some will ignore the warnings, feel that they are still "ok", or are simply undiagnosed.

Again, personal responsiblity.

Again, its not a matter of if a ride could be shut down for aggrevating pre-existing conditions. That's a given. Its a question of whether this ride is exceeding acceptable risk levels and what those levels are.

I don't see it as that complicated of an issue to deal with.

 

[Hannathy]

The ride is intense but I and everyone else riding knows this and chooses to ride, that is my right. I am an adult and can decide what risks I choose to participate in I do not need other people to decide for me because they "know what is best for everyone" You decide for yourself and I'll decide for me. Until someone dies because the ride malfunctioned I'll ride and if it was only one I'd still ride like BTMR. The woman died from a medical condition the ride didn't open and hurl her to her death! The little boy and it was tragic had well documented health problems that the family was aware of. And he had not had a chance to go on TOT or RNC because they had just got to Disney so it could have happened at the Studios if they had gone there first.

If it had happened exactly as these two deaths had happened at Universal or Six Flags I'd feel the same way.

 

[mickey mommy]

I'm not taking any chances. I know I'm not going to have a complete physical before I head to Disney, so my children and I will by-pass MS.

 

[manning]

The cause of death will not be known until autopsy has been performed. Who know what caused the death. It could be from a blood clot as a result of the long plane ride from Germany or from a pre-existing condition aggrevated from the ride. Who knows. Or it was just her time.

 

[DancingBear]

First, here's a reference to the dismissal of the safety allegations in the ETC lawsuit:

http://www.wesh.com/news/4619185/detail.html

It appears these issues were not tried, so the decision was not made upon the merits of the safety claims.

The character Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park (Jeff Goldblum) says:

Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.

Individual guests may have a tolerance for a higher level of risk. Mission:Space may truly be safe for all people that don't have pre-existing conditions. But that doesn't necessarily mean that Disney ought to be in the business of creating attractions that push that envelope.

It's not just paternalistic. If you want to go base-jumping (somewhere where it's legal and not endangering others), have at it. It's not even just a risk-management or a PR issue. It's a question about whether they need to be in this business.

Of course, it may be true that these are just statistical abnormalities and these two people could have just as easily died on one of the other thrill rides in the park that nobody is seeking to get rid of, like Space Mountain. But it's at least worth doing some further investigation/research and making a more educated decision.

BTW, another prescient quote from Jurassic Park:

John Hammond: When they opened Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked.
Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but John, if the Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists.

 

[raidermatt]

It's important to note that in that post I was detailing my position, in general, regardless of who runs the park. Read it as "I don't see that as a reason to shut it down."

That's fine, but since neither you nor I run the park, it doesn't really matter what we personally would do. The question remains what should Disney do.

In my mind, an acceptable level is that which a person in good health can endure without incurring lasting physical harm.

Again, all well and good, but what you or I believe is personally acceptable is irrelevant to everybody but ourselves and our families.

Despite the warning signs placed to cover them, your standard is FAR below what Disney considers acceptable, or more to the point, what they can accept and remain in business. If even 1% of the people with high blood pressure or heart conditions died when riding any ride with the warning signs, there would be deaths everyday.

Personal responsibility? Sure, I'm all for it. But we aren't talking about our own theories on personal responsibility. We are talking about what Disney can handle legally, and in the court of public opinion. Because of that, a different standard is the reality.

Which brings us back to what that standard should be from Disney's pov, and whether this ride meets it.

The cause of death will not be known until autopsy has been performed. Who know what caused the death. It could be from a blood clot as a result of the long plane ride from Germany or from a pre-existing condition aggrevated from the ride. Who knows. Or it was just her time.

All very true. However, pre-existing conditions, blood clots from plane rides, etc. are all things Disney has to be concerned about when it comes to how their rides impact people with these things. The reality is people with these things will be on these rides and some won't even know they have it.

As for it just being her time, really, is anybody seriously going to suggest that its LIKELY that if she had sat on a bench instead of going on the ride the same thing would have happened?

I could somewhat understand the defensive reaction after the first death. After all, anything can happen once. But now its twice, and we have long histories of other rides at WDW with zero deaths not caused by mechanical or human error.

Don't want it shut down just based on the two deaths? Ok, I can see that. But business as usual? Not even a suspicion worthy of further research?

 

[raidermatt]

It's a question about whether they need to be in this business.

Oh, I absolutely agree. I just hesitate to start that discussion in this thread because it involves a lot of other issues that have nothing to do with safety or these unfortunate deaths.

But its true, that one of the risks with getting into the thrill wars is that you do find yourself potentially faced with more safety concerns.

 

[magicforever]

I say tear it down and make a "New Horizons"

That is what i am talking about!!!

 

[FigNewton]

I'm not taking any chances. I know I'm not going to have a complete physical before I head to Disney, so my children and I will by-pass MS.

And all other thrill rides?

 

[3DisneyNUTS]

Shut it down... One time is a fluke two times in a year is not.

I have riden that ride once. I felt so odd (not sick just wierd) afterwards I swore to my DH I would never go on it nor allow our son on it. He agreed about our son but he has been on it again.

I am sure these two people were on many rides prior to their death and they didn't die after those. Too coincidental IMO I know I will have a discussion with Dh about his riding it again. The ride isn't that great anyway!

 

[FigNewton]

That's fine, but since neither you nor I run the park, it doesn't really matter what we personally would do. The question remains what should Disney do.

...

Man, it was said in direct response to the accusation that, simply because it was Disney, we were going easy on them, and if it was anyone else, then we wouldn't accept it.

I was simply delineating my position in general.

But OH, you're right, ultimately it doesn't matter what any of us thinks so I guess we should all just shut up. In fact this thread can be closed, since none of it matters. Why the heck are we even discussing it? Ugh.

And yes that's rhetorical.

 

[3DisneyNUTS]

The ride is intense but I and everyone else riding knows this and chooses to ride, that is my right. I am an adult and can decide what risks I choose to participate in I do not need other people to decide for me because they "know what is best for everyone" You decide for yourself and I'll decide for me. Until someone dies because the ride malfunctioned I'll ride and if it was only one I'd still ride like BTMR. The woman died from a medical condition the ride didn't open and hurl her to her death! The little boy and it was tragic had well documented health problems that the family was aware of. And he had not had a chance to go on TOT or RNC because they had just got to Disney so it could have happened at the Studios if they had gone there first.

If it had happened exactly as these two deaths had happened at Universal or Six Flags I'd feel the same way.

What about those that don't know about the deaths? I say make the warning signs include the deaths if you want to go by your rationale. Not everyone is going to hear about these deaths and it is the parks responsibility to decide whether the ride is actually safe.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

The issue becomes, because of the huge number of people that visit WDW and the large number of childern, a number of people will be placed "at risk" without their knowledge. Disney needs to acknowldge that fact. They also need to decide the lengths they will go to prevent their attractions from being that "one stress too much" element for its at-risk guests.

The 4yo boy was a very rare example of being too unhealthy to ride. But, in the case of this 49 yo woman, the news article said she may have suffered from high blood pressure. There are many, MANY warning signs on MS saying DO NOT RIDE if you suffer from a long list of medical conditions. High BP is one of them. Wasn't it the woman's responsibilty to know she has high BP and to skip the ride? I wonder how many people KNOW they suffer from some of the high risk conditions, and yet, they still ride. I know I do. I have a bad back. So that pretty much rules out all of Disney coasters if I followed the warning signs. I chose not to heed the warning signs going on Space Mountain, and now I know why the warning is there, that rides jerks the heck out of you. I was lucky I did not seriously injure my back, but I do not ride Space Mountain anymore, because I know, with my back, one wrong jerk, and my vacation will be over.

Now, with 2 deaths making national headlines, I hope people are more careful when deciding to ride or not. I do not think Disney needs to shut down the ride. They have enough warning signs telling people it is a dangerous ride. People need to use their own common sense.