Boy Killed on Kansas Water Slide

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The riders were held in by VELCRO! Complete fail.

I saw that, but maybe there was a reason behind that? Maybe if it were metal bars, the force/speed would cause more injuries than a velcro strap.

Was it a strap issue? As in, did a strap come loose?

It was a raft in the water so there was probably limited control over it once it began shooting down the slide. If the thing tipped over or got jammed somewhere on the ride, the riders needed to be able to get off. If they had been locked in with roller coaster type restraints there would be no way for the park attendants to release the restraints....with velcro the riders could release themselves if needed. Or at least that is my guess.

Yes. You don't put restraints on water slides, as a drowning prevention risk. This ride sounds like it is actually closer to a log flume in design, than a waterslide, but it doesn't meet the log flume standard either.

[Anonymous]

Information from some park employees says that the strap didn't come loose. The operators let the slide go down too light. The two women were small, less than 150 each. The boy was less than 80 pounds. The whole weight was around 350, rather than the required 400. The raft popped up when it hit the top of the second hill, the boy was in front and hit the netting. The impact with the netting tore him out of the seat.

The whole thing was caused by operator error.

[Anonymous]

Something else read this morning before clicking on this thread said the Velcro failed. In any case wouldn't it make more sense to have the heaviest person in front of keeping from going airborne is the goal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something else read this morning before clicking on this thread said the Velcro failed. In any case wouldn't it make more sense to have the heaviest person in front of keeping from going airborne is the goal?

If a heavy person is in front, it could cause the back end of the raft to fly up. Heavy balance would be key.

[Anonymous]

Several riders have said their velco straps failed on this ride. The weight requirements are weird and not enforced. Include teenage workers and you have a recipe for disaster.

[Anonymous]

Agree. 400 lbs
For three people is a serious design flaw. Particularly since this caters to families. There are going to be a lot of
Light kids and woman.

[Anonymous]

The explanation for how the decapitation happened makes sense except for the fact that they had already made it down the big hill and the force that propelled them into the net was generated largely by the water jets. (I only assume this because they put the jets in, in the first place, because the raft couldn't make it over the top of the second hill without help). It's crazy that the jets shot the raft upward with enough force to cause him such catastrophic injury. I guess it doesn't take much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The explanation for how the decapitation happened makes sense except for the fact that they had already made it down the big hill and the force that propelled them into the net was generated largely by the water jets. (I only assume this because they put the jets in, in the first place, because the raft couldn't make it over the top of the second hill without help). It's crazy that the jets shot the raft upward with enough force to cause him such catastrophic injury. I guess it doesn't take much.

How does it not make sense? The water jets are the reason the weight of all of the occupants needs to be 400 pounds, to counter the force of the water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The explanation for how the decapitation happened makes sense except for the fact that they had already made it down the big hill and the force that propelled them into the net was generated largely by the water jets. (I only assume this because they put the jets in, in the first place, because the raft couldn't make it over the top of the second hill without help). It's crazy that the jets shot the raft upward with enough force to cause him such catastrophic injury. I guess it doesn't take much.

How does it not make sense? The water jets are the reason the weight of all of the occupants needs to be 400 pounds, to counter the force of the water.

How does it not make sense? I already spelled it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The explanation for how the decapitation happened makes sense except for the fact that they had already made it down the big hill and the force that propelled them into the net was generated largely by the water jets. (I only assume this because they put the jets in, in the first place, because the raft couldn't make it over the top of the second hill without help). It's crazy that the jets shot the raft upward with enough force to cause him such catastrophic injury. I guess it doesn't take much.

How does it not make sense? The water jets are the reason the weight of all of the occupants needs to be 400 pounds, to counter the force of the water.

How does it not make sense? I already spelled it out.

[Anonymous]

According to People, the hospital weighed everyone and they were within the ride limits at a combined weight of 545 pounds. The maximum allowed was 550 so since they were near the upper limits the raft was probably traveling extra fast.

http://www.people.com/article/caleb-schwab-did-not-meet-weight-requirement-water-slide

[Anonymous]

Wow. I can't decide if this helps Schlitterbahn or makes it worse for them. Now they can't blame the ride operator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I can't decide if this helps Schlitterbahn or makes it worse for them. Now they can't blame the ride operator.

My thoughts exactly!

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The riders were held in by VELCRO! Complete fail. [/quote]

I saw that, but maybe there was a reason behind that? Maybe if it were metal bars, the force/speed would cause more injuries than a velcro strap.

Was it a strap issue? As in, did a strap come loose? [/quote]

It was a raft in the water so there was probably limited control over it once it began shooting down the slide. If the thing tipped over or got jammed somewhere on the ride, the riders needed to be able to get off. If they had been locked in with roller coaster type restraints there would be no way for the park attendants to release the restraints....with velcro the riders could release themselves if needed. Or at least that is my guess.[/quote]

The slide is just a drop and then a hill. If the raft tipped over or got stuck, it would be near ground level and a lifeguard could get there quickly and could release restraints. There isn't water deep enough to drown in if you overturned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to People, the hospital weighed everyone and they were within the ride limits at a combined weight of 545 pounds. The maximum allowed was 550 so since they were near the upper limits the raft was probably traveling extra fast.

http://www.people.com/article/caleb-schwab-did-not-meet-weight-requirement-water-slide

Interesting. Caleb looks like he couldn't be more than 100 lbs to me from the pictures. Even that is probably generous but I don't know. I doubt he is over 100 at 10 years old though as he doesn't look particularly big. I mean this in the least judgemental way possible but even being generous with his weight that would make the ladies on this ride pretty big. This would mean they are about the same size and actually a little bigger than my 6'3 DH. He's not particularly skinny, so? either I'm vastly underestimating Caleb's weight or I'm still a little skeptical.

But I've wondered if there was some sort of "catch" somewhere along the track that with the weight distribution caused the displacement from the track. The other people who reported their raft going airborne enough to cause a park response were two adults with an 8 year old, a configuration that would have been similar to Caleb's raft (two larger adults offsetting a child sized person in the front).