new dragon broke before the first show. (merged threads)

[Skipper S]

The designed should have safety in mind for the cast and the dragon. That way if it was to lose presser to fast then another system would be there to stop it from falling to fast. Then we would have a dragon now and not be waiting for them to fix it.

[danyoung]

techskip - breathe, one, two, three . . . . . OK, welcome back to reality.

[Robert Cook]

Originally Posted by techskip

My point is that the best plan expects everything to go wrong, if it goes right then its an unexpected surprise.

What you've described is merely an example of SNAFU. The new dragon, based on its very design, seems to be more like a case of FUBAR.

[Bruce Bergman]

Originally Posted by techskip

Good to hear the fix may be sooner rather then later...

Bruce- I know it was an example, but how does a saw work if it's safety feature is to stop when it's blade hits something?

Again just busting your chops. I know what you mean. It's imperative to be safe, but the design should make every attempt not to destroy the equipment in the process.

In the case of the saw, it energizes the blade with an electric charge on an insulated arbor and looks for any ground leakage like a GFCI. Dry wood is high resistance compared to skin and flesh.

The only practical way to stop and retract the blade fast enough involves destructive forces - If you can come up with another way to the same ends, I'd love to hear it. Any sort of hydraulic or pneumatic actuator would take several milliseconds to react, and you need it retracted in microseconds.

Originally Posted by techskip

As to the Murphy's Law comment... I remember this military conversation in a book about WW2-

Gunny- "Change the plans sir because when the time comes; that's not going to work, they won't be there, they will be there, that's going to work, this is going to be late and that's going to be early"
LT- "And how do you intend to predict the future?"
Gunny- "Simple... that's the worst that can happen!"

Per the individual being interviewed Gunny was 5/6... one wasn't late... it flat out never happened at all! My point is that the best plan expects everything to go wrong, if it goes right then its an unexpected surprise.

Originally Posted by Robert Cook

What you've described is merely an example of SNAFU. The new dragon, based on its very design, seems to be more like a case of FUBAR.

They designed in an E-Stop to satisfy the inspectors and the lawyers, but they didn't think through the "battle plan" as to what is going to happen after they hit the "Panic Button".

Obviously, it needed more work before the first actuation - maybe they'll get it right before the second...

I'd try two buttons - 'E-Stop' to halt all movement, then 'Stow and Retract' to get the Dragon offstage and into the pit once they know the envelope is clear of personnel.

--<< Bruce >>--

[bucky]

I highly doubt that the dragon was designed to collapse as a result of an e-stop condition. It is more likely that there was a mechanical failure of part of the e-stop system. Standard motion control design would have some kind of brake system to stop motion in the event of a hydraulic pressure loss. I would suspect that there was a pressure loss and the brakes fails to activate, either due to mechanical failure or a programing error. There is no way Disney would allow the Dragon to collapse on purpose. That is not a fail-safe (meaning that in the event of a failure, the system fails in to a safe status, stops motion, does not endanger people or property) and Disney always requires a fail-safe system.

[Exprmnt626]

I would be looking very closely at the vendor in this situation if I were Disney. Was there thorough post-fab testing? Was the whole unit tested at an off-site location? Was the dragon built to the specs as required by Disney? What was the scope of work? How were the safety systems to be handled? Was the failure due to the automation team taking the dragon beyond its specified capabilities? If that is the case, this damage (dependent on the circumstances) is Disney's fault. The design specs will out what the tolerances were, forces applied, etc. If the scope of work shows that the vendor built this to the Disney specs, and Disney did not do the math correctly, then this damage is Disney's fault. "Outsourced" alone does not equate to "lower quality".

[Fantasmanatic]

Don't forget what the techie had told me when I asked about the dragon. He said that the main hydraulic pipe (I'm assuming telescoping, or whatever is used for the lighting towers) had snapped due to stress. The programmers then pressed the E Stop button which would freeze the motions or return it to a safe state that harms no one around. Since the pipe is snapped theres nothing holding up this 10,000 pound dragon and so it would fall upon itself. So I don't think the E stop is designed at all to cause the dragon to implode but in this case that is what happened but not due to the E stop system. They had an extreme mechanical failure basically. When I talked to the techie on june 12th he said that they had already began stress testing new pipes, that were rated at 15,000 pounds. He said the head was taken off the island a few nights before june 12th, and my CM friend said the head is still in the work shops, or at least it hasn't returned yet. The cm said there's a rumor going around right now that the dragon may come out within the next few weeks, or at least july 4th was the new day to shoot for premiering the dragon.
Thats all I know for now, I will be going to the parks on wednesday the 24th so I will see what news I can get out of techies and cm's.

[Robert Cook]

All I can say is that designing such a system that relies on a single source of hydraulic pressure even for its planned failure modes--if that is indeed the case here--seems like a sure sign of incompetence rather than just a design flaw, if I may be so brash. Forget about the dragon being late--somebody could have been killed then or in the future not because of a terrible accident but because some engineers fundamentally didn't know what they were doing.

[RenMan]

Originally Posted by FantasyWatersDude

YouTube - Fantasmic! Re-Imagined at the Disneyland Resort!

Did anyone see this video^
It shows some glimpses of the new characters being tested.

Since this video is now private, does anyone know of a copy of it being posted anywhere?

Originally Posted by Broadway Guru

Techno-dependence rears its ugly head. This is why simpler is sometimes better. Sure, the head on a stick may not have been as impressive as a fully AA dragon, but it worked reliably for 15 years. The tall Maleficent was a failsafe used infrequently. I think we're going to start seeing it a lot more often now.

You know, this thread touches on an issue I've been thinking about a lot lately: design and budgeting that continue to work well into the future. I'm happy to know that WDI does blue sky planning and tries to tackle the impossible, but I still believe in the notion of Walt's "little park" and would rather that they do a few things well and reliably.

For example, I've never seen the "falling rock" effect within Indy, the one that uses the frozen tea or whatever it is and breaks apart and is then refrozen. Now, when they designed this were they also committed to maintaining it? Was money set aside for this?

Likewise, the Yeti animatronic at Expedition Everest: did they set aside the resources necessary to keep it working or did they spend it all just designing and building the thing? Or how about the dragon underneath the castle at DLP?

I believe very firmly that show elements should not be included unless the budget to maintain them has also been established. It brings me down that there are things in the parks that are permanently or regularly out of commission. By that I don't mean that they should never try expensive, cutting-edge effects and pieces, I just mean that they shouldn't reach out so far unless they can deal with the issues that will arise from such experimentation.

Now, with this dragon we're not talking about maintenance budget because the thing hasn't even premiered yet(!), but it is a case where design and production tolerances seem to have been too tight, and that's the same sort of faulty foresight that leaves us with other non-functional show elements. Animatronics in particular should be over-engineered to handle the stress of continual use; I'd rather there were fewer of them and they were better designed and built.

[MainSreetJake]

Originally Posted by RenMan

Since this video is now private, does anyone know of a copy of it being posted anywhere?


You know, this thread touches on an issue I've been thinking about a lot lately: design and budgeting that continue to work well into the future. I'm happy to know that WDI does blue sky planning and tries to tackle the impossible, but I still believe in the notion of Walt's "little park" and would rather that they do a few things well and reliably.

For example, I've never seen the "falling rock" effect within Indy, the one that uses the frozen tea or whatever it is and breaks apart and is then refrozen. Now, when they designed this were they also committed to maintaining it? Was money set aside for this?

Likewise, the Yeti animatronic at Expedition Everest: did they set aside the resources necessary to keep it working or did they spend it all just designing and building the thing? Or how about the dragon underneath the castle at DLP?

I believe very firmly that show elements should not be included unless the budget to maintain them has also been established. It brings me down that there are things in the parks that are permanently or regularly out of commission. By that I don't mean that they should never try expensive, cutting-edge effects and pieces, I just mean that they shouldn't reach out so far unless they can deal with the issues that will arise from such experimentation.

Now, with this dragon we're not talking about maintenance budget because the thing hasn't even premiered yet(!), but it is a case where design and production tolerances seem to have been too tight, and that's the same sort of faulty foresight that leaves us with other non-functional show elements. Animatronics in particular should be over-engineered to handle the stress of continual use; I'd rather there were fewer of them and they were better designed and built.

Well said! I agree with you. IF they are going to build something like this, they better have the correct funds for the correct sections, construction, and then care and maintenance after construction, right?

[10/6]

Has anyone been on the island reciently too see if anything was damaged, or scraped (like the floor) as anything, for a lack of better words, "fell"?

[AaronInCal]

I have not been on the island in some time.. But for whatever reason, the "dragon pit" was left open today and simply covered by tarps and barricades. Guests were not allowed on the front of the island because of this. Mint has some pics in his Blog update from today...

[The Forbidden Eye]

Originally Posted by AaronInCal

I have not been on the island in some time.. But for whatever reason, the "dragon pit" was left open today and simply covered by tarps and barricades. Guests were not allowed on the front of the island because of this. Mint has some pics in his Blog update from today...

That could lead many possibilities on why it was open and why the front was closed off. But something tells me that they're starting to get serious with the dragon, even though it's impossible to bring it out in broad daylight.

[HMF]

Originally Posted by AaronInCal

I have not been on the island in some time.. But for whatever reason, the "dragon pit" was left open today and simply covered by tarps and barricades. Guests were not allowed on the front of the island because of this. Mint has some pics in his Blog update from today...

I have been wondering about this for a while' does anyone know exactly what happened to the Lafitte's Tavern sign?

[The Forbidden Eye]

It's possible that the sign is just in refurb. It pops up from time to time. The place is still identified as the tavern as you can see the name on the raft dock side of the river.