That is some hot tea! Thanks for sharing the ins and outs of the Orlando Slinghost division. So, correct me if I am wrong, if the Orlando Slingshot was a division of Funtime, and the Orlando Freefall was made by Funtime, could it be assumed that Funtime was aware of the tweaking that was done to the ride hardware to allow larger guests?
Great question, I had no idea they were basically the manufacturer as well as the operator.
Not sure, but I highly doubt it. Especially since Funtime is located in Australia, I doubt the folks that run the company were in the loop about what was happening with the ride other than assuming everything was as it should be. Was Six Flags headquarters in Arlington, Texas aware of what led to various maintenance failure accidents at their parks beforehand? Kind of the same thing IMO, whether intentional or not.
Although the operater company is owned by the manufacturer, they're still different companies (and not just divisions of the same company) that sit on different contintents.
But that age old saying ‘the buck stops at the top’ still applies, no?Although the operater company is owned by the manufacturer, they're still different companies (and not just divisions of the same company) that sit on different contintents.
Farewell, Orlando Freefall, see you in some other distant land by 2024
God, I hope not. I hope it gets scrapped.
Why? It's perfectly fine if you reverse the deathly changes to make some of the seats "XXL seats".
Come on now. Let’s not imply malice to something that was clearly the result of negligence. The people altering the ride and running it that way were irresponsible and should be trialed as such, but they weren’t out to intentionally harm anyone.
Well I didn't imply intent to be fair, although having said that such reckless negligence, or 'malpractice,' is definitely malicious. How could you possibly tamper with such a critical safety system without intent to cause harm, or at the very least, some idea of the liklihood that it would cause harm?
I mean, I don’t know of many other ways to interpret comparisons to murder (and bringing up Florida law after the fact I don’t think alleviates much) and putting scare quotes around ”unfortunate accident” if not to imply a more sinister underpinning. That may not be the intent, but that’s how I felt it came across. Preventable accidents are still accidents.
Recklessness and malpractice, even severe ones, do not have to involve malice. It’s entirely possible that those involved knew there’d be a risk (wether an accident would occur or they get on the manufacturer’s bad side for not adhering to their specifications), but that’s a far cry from saying they deliberately set out to have riders falling to their deaths or just allowed it to happen. Unless evidence of malicious intent actually emerges, that’s going too far into the realm of conspiracy theories, in my personal opinion.
