I FEEL sorry for the Singapore Flyer passengers who underwent a traumatic experience when the Flyer broke down.
This incident and previous breakdowns, all of which occurred less than a year since the Flyer has been in operation, give rise to a number of queries:
Was the ferris wheel designed with built-in redundancy?
Facile explanations such as the Flyer being able to operate on three out of the six installed motors do not cut much ice, as this did not restore the Flyer quickly on the four occasions during which it broke down.
Are there any manual contingency features in case the automatic backup devices fail - something which seems to be happening repeatedly?
Such features are necessary not only during breakdowns, but also in the event of fires, riders feeling ill on board or even in the case of aberrant, mischievous or destructive behaviour on the part of riders while the Flyer is in operation.
Is there a clearly-defined escalation process for such contingencies?
If so, how soon after a system failure is such a process triggered, and who is responsible for it?
Is there a team responsible for rescue operations in the event that back-up processes fail?
Private organisations whose main business is the maintenance of building facades should not be providing the main rescue teams for such eventualities.
Does the rescue plan take into account the fact that large numbers of people, including children and the elderly, may need to be evacuated rapidly in case of breakdowns or accidents?
Given the altitude and inclement weather conditions which may prevail at times, lowering people to the ground in harnesses is not a practical rescue option for most children, pregnant women and riders who are not able-bodied.
Taking the number of stoppages which have occurred so far into account, one wonders whether adequate trials and simulations of such emergency situations were carried out before the Flyer was put into operation.
