[cmiles74]

I was surprised to discover the article didn't mention any engineers that had worked on the design or implementation being sued for damages. Nor did the article mention any engineers who refused to construct or otherwise work on the tallest and most dangerous waterslide in the world.

Perhaps engineers in other fields are not so different from software engineers after all, published code of conduct aside.

[anamexis]

Part of the insanity here is that there were no engineers involved in the design of the slide. It was largely designed by a co-owner of the park who possessed "no technical of engineering skills."

[cmiles74]

I read that too... I just don't believe it. That seems ridiculous to me. Would they have to hire an army of handymen to do the construction? It looks way too large and involved for that. Does the state really allow construction of something this large and involved without any engineers signing off?

If this is true, I don't think I may ever let my child into a water park. Is this true of traditional amusement parks as well, I wonder?

[ficklepickle]

Their family owns a construction company that was also named in the legal filings, so I assume they built it.

It defies belief. I don't know how they got insurance for essentially homemade waterslides.

[smelendez]

It seems like most of the insurance and regulatory process assumed independent manufacturers certifying the equipment. In this case, the manufacturer was also essentially also the park operator.

[anamexis]

It seems that it differs by state, but in Kansas, amusement parks in general are self-regulated.

[Digory]

“According to Schooley, owner Henry was at a trade show and simply decided he wanted to build the tallest, fastest water slide at one of his five Schlitterbahn water parks. He immediately shopped the idea to vendors, who declined, but he refused to be denied.”[0]

The guy couldn’t find reputable vendors willing to take on the project.

[0] http://www.cnn.com/travel/article/worlds-tallest-water-slide...

[jey]

Doesn't sound like they had any engineers. The article mentions only one engineering consultation just before it opened which warned that "a raft with three passengers weighing between 400 and 550 pounds could go airborne" and which was dismissed by the company.

[cmiles74]

I believe that same company also noted that the rafts were leaving the track.

That aside, while it's clear the person from the park that led the project was not any kind of engineer, I find it very unlikely that the slide was designed and built without the involvement of any licensed engineers.

Everytime an article related to the Volkswagen emissions scandal is mentioned, a finger is always pointed towards the software developers and it's hinted that they broke the law and should be responsible in some way. I am surprised a similar note isn't struck in this article with regards to the engineers that worked on this project.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-vw-...

[jey]

The article claims that Jeff Henry designed it entirely through trial-and-error methods without the involvement of any engineers. That sounds preposterous to me too, but it seems to be true.

[StillBored]

While this sounds good on the surface, much of engineering is pushing boundaries and just because an engineer has a formal education, a license and some simulation software doesn't mean they are going to build something that is safe.

I would trust physical models (aka trial and error) in this case just as much if not more than simulation models.

Turbulent water flow, varying weight/seating positions in a _rubber_ raft, varying friction as the raft bumps the walls, etc all are going to explode the model space. Combined with a general effort to push the envelope and create an exciting ride the basic seat of the pants (high-school) physics is going to set some boundaries on weight/angle/etc but the final details aren't necessarily going to be 100% accurate.

Worse, it wasn't the ride so much as the safety equipment which failed. Having a raft/etc come slightly off the track at the top of a hill like that is probably part of the design. I've been on other slides like that where you leave the surface for a bit only to be caught farther down (its pretty much guaranteed on roller coasters). I can see a PE making the same mistake, the ride is safe, but "just in case" lets throw some netting up to catch anyone so its absolutely impossible for them to be ejected. Hence my comment earlier about how master blaster still has the same kind of netting to this day, despite my own misgivings when I initially saw it years ago.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

From the indictment:

27. HENRY's rushed schedule affected quality control. A steel detailer named Ronald Miller, who was hired to assist with the Verrückt construction, emailed Project Manager Kathrine Fontenot to voice his concerns: "I'll be honest with you. We were forced to ship this [tower platform] way to early. There are still so many unknowns. We would have saved a lot more time (and money) if everything was figured out here at the plant. I have been telling people for months that it was imperative to have all of this stuff figured out prior to shipment. My requests fell on deaf ears and now it is on its way up to KC to be galvanised. Instead of dealing with these questions in a controlled environment, where we have the material and resources to resolve these matters, it is going to have to be done on the fly 160' in the air, on a structure that is galvanised."