Adventure Park TRENDING # tree_monitoring # photo_systems # OSHA_regulations # media_relations # incident_trends # and_more SPRING / SUMMER 2024 Insider “Clear to Zip!” Communication strategies to mitigate collision risks on course. Avert the Amygdala Hijack How to identify and manage the brain’s response to fear and help participants overcome it.
I N T O H I G H
Prepping for Peak Season Picture this: It’s high season. Business is booming. Opera- tions are running like a well-greased trolley. Staff are smiling. You’ve had zero major incidents. Participants are sharing rave reviews. The weather has been sunny and mild. If that’s not a perfect vision, we don’t know what is. But we do know it takes a ton of work to get there. There’s maintenance and inspections, hiring and training, marketing and booking— and often a short window in which to get it all done. After the flurry of spring action, hopefully summer affords you an opportunity to step back and watch your business flourish. Of course, that’s not to say operators should rest on their laurels. Things can turn on a dime. Understanding that reality, we’ve put together an issue full of stories to keep you sharp. “Successful Sending” (p. 58) and “Not Safe for Work” (p. 28) offer insights about keeping your guests and staff safe. “Nothing But the Truth” (p. 24) has just-in-case advice to guide your media communications in the event an inci- dent does occur. “Trees and Bad Weather” (p. 54) is there with expertise to support you if extreme weather strikes. Meanwhile, “The Brain and Fear” (p. 34) and “Capturing Customers” (p. 42) look at totally different tools to enhance the guest experience. Add to that some introspection on industry standards and some excellent reporting on the industry’s most interesting products, people, and places, and you have a full issue to carry you through peak season and beyond. A Fair Deal? Our goal is to produce high quality content that is educa- tional, thought-provoking, and fun to read. Have we been successful? Well, more people than ever are engaging with our content, but not always through a subscription. We love what we do, and when you subscribe to API , you join your colleagues in supporting an industry resource that works hard for you. In return, your subscription gets you valuable reporting about the people, aerial adventure operations, technology, trends, challenges, and opportuni- ties that are shaping the industry. We hope that sounds like a fair deal. L ETTER FROM THE EDITORS
Take a moment to subscribe. It’s only $39 / yr. That’s like one cup of coffee a month. Make us a habit and subscribe below.
—The Editors
VOL. 10 | NO. 2 |
SPRING/SUMMER 2024
CONTENTS
ON THE COVER
Scenes from Denali Park Zipline, an off-the-grid adventure on the edge of Denali National Park, with eight zip lines (two of which compose the dual zip finish of the tour) connected by six sky bridges and a ladder. Read more about the construction and operation of this unique outfit in the Alaskan wilder- ness in “Northern Exposure.”
>> 38
Successful Sending Communication strategies for effective zip line operation and collision risk mitigation. By Bee Lacy 58 46 The Standards You Should Know Experts outline the predominant industry standards—what they are, who writes 50 Ready and ABEE Experientially-oriented ABEE focuses on smart challenge course design and construction without flashy flourishes. By Bob Curley 54 Trees and Bad Weather To keep your property safe, understand how extreme weather events effect trees. By Scott D. Baker them, and why you should care. By Mandy Stewart and Keith Jacobs
The Brain and Fear Identify and manage the brain’s response to fear to help participants overcome it. By Christopher Ortiz 34 How to handle tough questions from the media without resorting to “no comment.” By Skip King 28 Not Safe for Work The 10 OSHA violations that often sneak past aerial activity operators. By Don Stock 38 Northern Exposure The Alaskan wilderness provides picturesque views and a few operational hurdles at Denali Park Ziplines. By Peter Oliver 42 Capturing Customers Key considerations when choosing the right photo or video systems from a slew of evolving options. By Josh Laskin 24 Nothing But the Truth
Cover design: Joerg Dressler
3 Letter from the Editors Prepping for Peak Season 6 Park Briefs Trends from the ACCT conference; a breakdown of braking standards; revisions to ACCT’s standards development process. By The Editors 12 New Products Tech and tools to keep things fresh and smooth operations. By Sarah Borodaeff 16 Analyzing 2023 Incident Trends A data-driven look at incident causes and costs offers operators ideas about how to mitigate risks. By Cameron Annas
WAIT, THERE’S MORE!
22 Park Spy
For the latest adventure park industry news, special online reports, digital magazine archives, and more, visit www.adventureparkinsider.com.
“How do I know your trees are safe?”
CONTRIBUTORS
EDITORIAL OFFICE P.O. Box 1776 • McCormick, SC 29835 Tel. 203.263.0888 Website: www.adventureparkinsider.com Publisher Olivia Rowan—olivia@adventureparkinsider.com Editor Dave Meeker—dave@adventureparkinsider.com Senior Editor Katie Brinton—katie@adventureparkinsider.com Art Director Sarah Wojcik—sarahw@adventureparkinsider.com Graphic Design Consultant Joerg Dressler—joerg@dressler-design.com Production Manager Donna Jacobs—donna@adventureparkinsider.com
ADVERTISING/MARKETING OFFICE 70 Pond Street • Natick, MA 01760 Tel. 508.655.6408 / Fax 508.655.6409 Advertising Director Sharon Walsh—sharon@adventureparkinsider.com Digital Partnerships Director Sarah Wojcik—sarah@adventureparkinsider.com Marketing / Social Media Manager Jordyn Bremer—jordyn@adventureparkinsider.com ADVENTURE PARK INSIDER — Vol. 10, No. 2, Spring/Summer 2024, is published, by Beardsley Publishing Corp., 70 Pond Street, Natick, MA 01760-4438. POSTMASTER: send address changes to Beardsley Publishing, P.O. 1776, McCormick, SC 29835. Copy- right 2024 Beardsley Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
Cameron Annas Scott Baker Bob Curley
Skip King Josh Laskin Peter Oliver Mandy Stewart Don Stock
April Darrow Keith Jacobs
SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR Rick Kahl
CIRCULATION / SUBSCRIPTIONS 70 Pond Street • Natick, MA 01760 Tel. 508.655.6409 / Fax 508.655.6409 subscriptions@adventureparkinsider.com Circulation Manager Jordyn Bremer—jordyn@adventureparkinsider.com To subscribe to Adventure Park Insider magazine, visit our website: www.adventureparkinsider.com/subscribe
American Adventure Park Systems
Built on the strength of over 40 years experience
Structures
Inspections |Design | Installation Training | Retro�ts | Modi�cation
We Build World Records!
Bridges
Towers
Continuous Belay Systems
Fast Install | Easy Retro�t |No Accidental Disconnects | Versatile| Cost Effective
americanadventurepark.com info@aaparks.com 770-834-9149
PARK BRIEFS
NEWS FROM AROUND THE AERIAL ADVENTURE INDUSTRY
CALLS FOR COLLABORATION IN OKLAHOMA CITY
In this edition of “Park Briefs,” we’re talking about all things ACCT (Association for Challenge Course Technology), including a look at trends from the 2024 International Conference and Expo, a break- down of the latest thoughts on braking standards, and an overview of proposed revisions to ACCT’s standards development process.
Transparency, cooperation, and collaboration were buzzwords at the 34th annual ACCT International Conference and Expo., held Feb. 22-25 in Oklahoma City. It was Melissa Webb’s first conference as ACCT executive director after running the event for several years as ACCT’s events director. She was named ED in August 2023. Various workshops with ACCT leadership showed the association is interested in hearing more from its membership, especially after the most recent draft standard was scrapped after it received an unprece- dented number of comments. The standards-writing process is being revisited as a result, with several changes in the offing ( learn more on page 10 ). This was addressed during a workshop led by the ACCT Accredited Procedures Task Force.
Operators, especially, called for more collaboration among themselves and were also critical of how vendors have historically been guarded in sharing best practices. In a workshop about collaboration, for example, an executive from a multi-park company compared the aerial adventure industry to the climb- ing wall industry, saying the latter is “infinitely more collaborative.” In the spirit of sharing to promote learning, ERi’s Mandy Stewart and Todd Domeck presented a session titled “Fatality: A True Story.” They detailed a 2011 incident on an ERi zip line installation in Hawaii that resulted in the death of contractor Ted Callaway. Stew- art and Domeck discussed the standards that were
followed during construction, the issues with how those standards were developed, the ensuing criticism of ERi and its leaders from within the ACCT ranks, and the resulting changes to the standard, among other revealing details of the incident’s aftermath. They thanked Webb for green-lighting the presenta- tion, and the packed room gave both Webb and the presenters standing ovations. More applause was heard during the awards dinner on the final night, when Leigh Carruth was recognized with ACCT’s highest honor, the Critical Link Award, for her decades of dedication to coordinating the “yellow hats” crew of volunteers that help during the conference. •
>>
Faces at the ACCT International Conference and Expo
A crew from Adventure Park Insider joined 665 registered attendees and 51 exhibitors for educational workshops, training sessions, networking events, and a trade show at the 34th annual Association for Challenge Course Technology International Conference and Expo., held Feb. 22-25 in Oklahoma City.
Above: Granite Insurance CEO Cameron Annas plays pick- leball at a networking event. Clockwise from top left: Joel Hunt and Mapsy Powers of Ap- plied Adventure Consultants, with Jacob McAnulty of Quarry Park Adventures, Calif.; High 5’s Phil Brown hosts a game of trivia; (L to R) API ’s Sharon Walsh, Rick Kahl, Jack Fagone, Olivia Rowan, Jordyn Bremer, and Dave Meeker strike a pose; American Adventure Park Systems’ Aditya Patel mans the trade show booth.
RUNS SMOOTHLY
FOR ADULTS & CHILDREN
EASY TO RETROFIT
FOR HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL ACTIVITIES
www.koala-equipment.com
PARK BRIEFS
NEWS FROM AROUND THE AERIAL ADVENTURE INDUSTRY
will likely lead to a standard that approaches braking, and hand braking, in a different manner.
Klajnscek stated that collisions with objects are relatively rare, a point on which many in the industry agree. However, collisions with people, he said, are “still common”—a characterization that many North American operators would likely reject, even if collisions with people occur more often than collisions with objects. Plus, many of the collisions involving people that end up in court occur on zip lines with automatic brakes; the main issue in these cases surrounds communication between the sending and arrival platforms, not the type of brake used. Simply put: Klajnscek (along with some other members of the TIRE Committee) believe that guests and even guides are unreliable when it comes to hand braking, and that automated systems are much more reliable. Operators, designers, and builders of hand braking zip lines believe that guests are in fact quite capable of hand braking, guides are even more so, and that automated systems are less reliable, efficient, and gentle in practice than the engineers believe. And, again, it appears that many collisions between
BRAKING NEWS Despite a failure to achieve consensus on hand braking in the 2022 ANSI/ACCT Draft Standard, some of its authors continue to promote its more controversial aspects.
Make no mistake, Klajnscek has the best of intentions. He is a respected and knowledgeable engineer with decades of experience in aerial activities. He invested a good deal of time and research into braking and, crucially—through his work as an inspector and an expert witness—into the causes of collisions between humans and between humans and objects. Points of Agreement A good portion of Klajnscek’s presentation focused on the physics involved in collisions—not just on zip lines, but collisions between people and objects in general. He explained the widely accepted idea that impacts between people and objects become significant and increasingly severe as speeds exceed 15 mph (as was outlined in an ACCT advisory in 2022 that Klajnscek helped draft). As such, the speed-risk relationship should inform how we look at speed on zips, he said.
By Rick Kahl
The strengths and weaknesses of the ANSI/ACCT standards-development process were on full display at the ACCT annual conference in Oklahoma City this past February. Perhaps the most revealing session in this regard was “Zip Line Brake Systems & Landings, Part 2,” presented by Rich Klajnscek of Sea Fox Consulting. The session drew a large crowd, perhaps 75-80 per- sons, maybe more. It was a continuation of a session Klajnscek presented the previous year in Portland, Ore. Both sessions outlined the research and thinking that went into the development of the most recent ANSI/ ACCT Draft Standard distributed in the fall of 2022. One key difference: some of that thinking had been rejected by the time this year’s session took place. The draft standard was largely the work of a few indi- viduals on the ACCT Technical Information, Research, and Education (TIRE) Committee, including Klajnscek, and the negative comments from the broader aerial adventure and challenge course industry showed that there was no consensus about this thinking. This was especially the case with the draft standard’s treatment of hand braking. Despite that lack of consensus, Klajnscek’s presenta- tion largely repeated the ideas and rules that the failed draft standard embodied. He appeared to believe that a few tweaks to the draft would be sufficient to win over those who had submitted negative comments, and that there was little room for changing the draft’s requirements regarding zip line braking. Based on conversations API has had with designers, builders, and operators over the past year, as well as the parallel work being done by ASTM, it would appear that others will continue to disagree with Klajnscek and the TIRE Committee on that front. That in itself demonstrates a shortcoming in the way the most recent draft standard was developed: too few individuals had contributed to it (a shortcoming ACCT is actively working to rectificy; see “Charting a New Course for Standards,” p. 10 ). There was little to no input from people who design, install, or operate hand braking systems.
It appears that many collisions between people are the result of communication breakdowns ... regardless of the braking system used.
The standard, he argued, must address preventing col- lisions with people or “stuff,” the appropriate brake for the landing speeds, preventing rider interaction when that’s too risky, braking riders gently, and consider worst-case scenarios. Most people would agree with those points. But there’s far less agreement on how to achieve these goals. Points of Disagreement Klajnscek makes several assumptions that are clearly not shared by others in the industry, including many who have more experience in hand braking design, installation, and operations. For example, Klajnscek noted that in his experience as an expert witness in court cases, 75 percent involved zip line incidents, and 59 percent of those (44 percent of all his cases), involve brakes/landings. His expert witness work, though, is not representative of all incidents involving zip line operations, nor is it representative of the operations and experiences themselves, commercial or educational. Nor was hand braking involved in all the brake/landing lawsuits. (To the contrary: Insurance claims data indicate that most lawsuits around collisions during braking involve automated systems, not hand braking. See “Analyzing 2023 Incident Trends,” p. 16. )
people are the result of communication breakdowns between sending and arrival platforms, regardless of the braking system used. Discussion Items Klajnscek listed several items that he feels should be “on the table” for discussion during development of the next draft standard. These include: • Departure control systems, to prevent launch before line is clear. • Self-guided zips should require instructional signage. • Padding on platforms and use of e-brakes when contact is possible. • During testing, analyze what happens when partici- pants don’t brake. • Being ready for people to fail to brake. • Building for the worst-case scenario. • Requiring the use of passive primary brakes (auto- matic brakes) above 15 mph. The first five of these points seem eminently reason- able. They are common-sense steps that address guest safety. At one point in the session, Klajnscek noted that departure control systems become more critical as zip lines get longer and it becomes more difficult for a guide at the launch point to assess whether the line is clear. Again, it’s hard to argue with that; many of these points have been addressed in the PRCA and ASTM standards already.
That input, though, will be essential to arrive at a draft standard capable of achieving future consensus. And it
The speed-range conundrum . Of course, the last item in that list is the great bone of contention. And it’s based on the item before it, building for the worst-case scenario. Many operators with hand braking courses would say that the worst-case scenario—in which all braking systems on the course fail—is highly unlikely. And they argue that limiting hand braking to speeds below 15 mph for the landing is needlessly restrictive. Nor is it easy to determine what the landing speed will be in all cases, making it difficult to determine when the 15-mph threshold will be met. Nonetheless, Klajnscek’s presentation retained the failed draft’s three-tier speed-and-braking system requirements. That approach specified: 1. No braking system is required for landings at 6 mph or slower. He allowed that this is not a hard and fast speed limit; a landing at 7 mph is not appreciably more perilous than one at 6 mph. 2. Between 6 mph and 15 mph, hand braking “can be” OK, in conjunction with guide and/or auto braking and an emergency brake. 3. Above 15 mph, no hand braking can be considered part of the actual braking system.
threshold for arrivals, and how to account for weather/ wind/weight extremes that make the arrival speed unpredictable. This discussion illustrated the practical difficulties of establishing rigid speed ranges, as the previous draft had included. It’s possible that a reasonable solution would be to require longer, gentler braking zones, not to outlaw hand braking or establish speed ranges that are problematic to determine in practice. That idea would seem to be worth adding to the discussion list. The fail-safe dilemma. Klajnscek also injected the idea of requiring “fail-safe” systems into the discussion. (The current ANSI/ACCT standard makes no mention of fail-safe systems, though the current ASTM standard does.) Fail-safe means that the entire system must stop the rider safely even if all the individual braking system components fail. That’s an extremely high bar. To clear it, the ASTM standards assume that the failure of two automatic systems used in sequence is so unlikely to fail that such a redundant system can be deemed “fail-safe.” (When is the worst-case scenario not the worst-case scenario? When we say so.) The Path Forward Despite any shortcomings, Klajnscek’s proposals serve as a starting point for drafting a second attempt at an
update to the current standard’s treatment of braking. It’s not the physics that is in dispute, it’s how to best brake participants given the experience they are seek- ing. Hand braking zip lines require the participation of the riders, and that makes the experience fundamen- tally different from a zip line with an auto braking system. That responsibility may be essential to the experience for some participant-directed recreational and educational operations. The notion that brake systems must be “fail-safe” does not come from the aerial adventure world, and it may not be appropriate to apply this standard to all zip lines. Given that some element of risk is acceptable in adventure and education and how problematic the idea of a “fail-safe” system is for aerial adventure and education, this should be a topic of discussion, not a given. ACCT is in the process of revising its accredited pro- cedures for producing its ANSI-approved standards. This process is likely months away from completion; it requires approval by two separate bodies, and a possible public comment period if ANSI considers the changes substantive.
There was some discussion during the session of whether 15 mph or 20 mph should be the top
Once new procedures are set, though, it will be up to all stakeholders to at least pay attention and/or get
We’re here to make your ticket management smooth and hassle-free Park Wide Ticket Capacities Mass Ticket Communication Strategic Start Time Promotion Walk-in Reservations in Seconds
PARK BRIEFS
NEWS FROM AROUND THE AERIAL ADVENTURE INDUSTRY
involved in drafting the next revision to ANSI/ACCT 03.2019. Everyone’s point of view matters. That’s the only way to achieve a consensus standard and avoid a repeat of the most recent failure. • CHARTING A NEW COURSE FOR STANDARDS
The short version. For those who don’t like to read, the short version is this: Future standards will be developed with much greater input from a wide range of stake- holders early in the process. All stakeholders who will be impacted by the standard will be encouraged to take part in drafting revisions to the current standard, and their perspectives and viewpoints will be incorporated. That’s a significant change. In the past, ACCT’s proce- dures limited the number of draft writers to 10; ANSI encourages no limits on contributors, and recom- mends broad participation by all stakeholders who will be affected by the standard. Going forward, there could be dozens or hundreds of ACCT stakeholders who have a say in the sections that impact them. The APTF proposal also restates the role of the Con- sensus Group (CG). As is typical ANSI process, ACCT, as the Accredited Standards Developer, will oversee the draft-writing process. Draft-writing will likely be based with the Technical Information, Research, and Education (TIRE) Committee, as has been the case in the past. The role of the CG (which in the past had shared authority to set up task groups to help draft standards) will become that of providing a check and balance on the draft standard.
the Supreme Court, but one representative of the overall industry and not stacked to any particular point of view—the APTF proposal creates five stakeholder groups: producers, servicers, commercial operators, educational operators, and general interest. All groups have an equal say on a draft standard. The new groups would replace the current three, which are vendors, users, and general interest. Again, the aim is to ensure that future standards achieve consensus across all industry stakeholders. If any one group of stakeholders has an objection to a provision of a proposed standard, that objection must be resolved before the standard can gain “consensus” status. In another change, the role of resolving any negative comments on the draft will be shared by ACCT (in prac- tice, the Board and/or TIRE Committee) and the CG. There’s a lot more in this proposal, which the APTF re- fers to as a “redlined copy of ACCT’s current Accredited Procedures,” but that’s it in a nutshell. Next steps. Once the APTF completes its work, the revised procedures must be approved by the CG and by ANSI. Even if all goes smoothly, it will likely be late July, at the earliest, before the changes become final. And it could take longer.
By Rick Kahl
To prepare for a new attempt to update the ANSI/ACCT 2019 standard, the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT) has been revising its procedures for drafting standards. And it presented its nearly-com- plete plan during an April 29 webinar. If the final plan is accepted—it must be approved by both the ACCT Consensus Group and the American National Stan- dards Institute (ANSI)—it could dramatically reform the way ACCT standards are developed. The April 29 presentation was rather complex and detailed. To better understand what it all means, API spoke with ACCT board members Michael R. Smith and Korey Hampton, both also members of the Accredited Procedures Task Force (APTF) that has been redefining the standards-writing process.
To achieve balance in the CG—think of a body like
Wire Rope and Hardware for the zipline/challenge course industry
Stronger, smoother, faster! Provides 30% greater break strengths than other wire ropes in the same diameter. S UPER S WAGED Zipwire ® Now! In-house swaging. Thimble eyes, marine eyes, threaded studs. Custom cut, marked, reeled to order.
401.434.3900 Toll Free 888.297.3900 Fax 401.434.4439
All kinds of wire ropes manufactured with experiential industry professionals in mind. Always consistent and mill certified. No substitutions!
Web: www.wwewirerope.com • E-mail: mike@wwewirerope.com A Division of WORLDWIDE ENTERPRISES, INC.
The background. ACCT set up the APTF following the with- drawal of ACCT’s latest draft standard in spring 2023, which drew more than 1,700 negative comments— demonstrating a profound lack of industry consensus. Coincident with the public comment period on the draft, ANSI was conducting a periodic review of ACCT’s Accredited Procedures (AP). ANSI identified a few flaws in those procedures, made some suggestions, and the APTF has been working to fix the issues. (For reference, ANSI noted that a well-drafted standard, with broad stakeholder involvement, might typically receive five or six negative comments.) Perhaps the biggest flaw in ACCT’s AP regarded who could write standards. ANSI has a list of essential re- quirements for writing standards, which states that any- one can propose a standard. While that proposal could be composed by a single individual, ANSI encourages that drafts include input from all stakeholders—pretty much the exact opposite of ACCT’s current practice, which stemmed, at least in part, from ACCT’s history. When ACCT first began drafting standards, it was primarily an organization of vendors. When they wanted to establish building standards, they wrote them themselves. One legacy of that has been that standards-writing has been left mostly to the vendors,
up to and including the latest ANSI/ACCT standard.
chart, to call out where stakeholders can participate,” Smith said. “ANSI has encouraged us to be more clear, and we’re trying to do that. “Our goal will be to make education a regular ongoing thing, not a once a year workshop at the annual conference as in the past,” he said. It’s a new world. The AP signals more than simply a change in procedures. It also recognizes that the membership of ACCT has expanded, and the old ways of operating are no longer valid. It’s likely that the changes being formulated will be difficult for many in the organization. “The changes will be disruptive in the organization, but in a good way,” Smith asserted. “We’re no longer a small little organization focused on the builder side; standards changes can have a big impact. “I expect we’ll have some challenges going forward; change can be hard. We don’t know exactly what openness will look like. It will not be business as usu- al.” But, he added, “If we welcome more stakeholders in, we’ll have some good conversations.”
Everyone has a role. “Anyone can submit standards ideas to ACCT,” Smith said. “The stakeholders should be writing the standard, not the association.” Not that all (or even most) stakeholders have to con- tribute to every section of a standard. ANSI does not require that level of balance in the drafting process. “That makes sense,” said Smith. Some issues only apply to one or two groups of stakeholders, such as installation and testing of ground anchors, he noted. Still, all stakeholders should be involved at the appro- priate point(s). So, in reviewing the AP, “We wanted to look at it from scratch,” Smith told us, “because the industry has changed a lot over time.” The role and responsibilities of the CG have changed over time as well, he added, “and that’s created some confusion.” Making it easy. To encourage greater involvement by the industry, a major goal of the proposed new proce- dures is to make the standards development process easier to understand and participate in. Aside from the revised AP, ACCT has several means of making the process easier to grasp. Webinars are one, more educational material on the ACCT website is another. “Ultimately, we’d like to create an educational flow
One thing is certain, he said: “The next project we jump into will look very different from the previous ones.”
ADVENTURE PARKS • ROPES COURSES • ZIP LINES ADVENTURE PARK AND ROPES COURSE GEAR CABLE & HARDWARE
ROPE
CARABINERS
HARNESSES
HELMETS
TROLLEYS
...and More!
CALL OUR EXPERTS FOR AVAILABLE INVENTORY - WE ARE HERE TO HELP!
RETAIL SALES
WHOLESALE SALES
888.632.8631 ropescoursewarehouse.com cs@ropescoursewarehouse.com
800.952.7325 peaktrading.com cs@peaktrading.com
NEW PRODUCTS Industry suppliers have released new products designed to smooth operations and keep things fresh. The team at Adventure Park Insider has rounded up a selection of these new products from the ACCT annual expo, Mountain Planet, and elsewhere. _______________________________
BY SARAH BORODAEFF
Fusion climb Magnezilla buckle
F usion Climb has equipped its Aventa Challenge Course full-body har- ness with its new Magnezilla buckle system. The magnetic buckle system allows for quick and easy guest harnessing and secure attachment. The buckle is unlocked using a key that is carried by authorized guides, preventing any accidental disengagement by participants. The Aventa Challenge Course full-body harness meets CE EN12277:2015 and ANSI Z359.11-2021 standards. The Aventa harness with Magnezilla system is available in kids and adult sizes. fusionclimb.com
SPS FIlets long live school collection
T he SPS Filets Long Live School collection reimagines classic challenge course elements with school-themed details. The collection features custom bridge panels in shapes such as pencils and crayons, a ride-on pencil case, and hanging slates. Features are made from materials such as painted wood, PVC sheeting, and no-slip plywood. Elements from the Long Live School collection can be mixed and matched for an exciting adventure. spsfilets.com
The Pencil
The Eraser
The Pencil Case
>> continued
Keep the thrills coming, by having the right protection in place!
Partner with Granite Insurance, the elite provider for insurance solutions, educational content, and risk management services to the Aerial Adventure industry. Cameron Annas | 828-212-4552 | cannas@graniteinsurance.com
NEW PRODUCTS
T he Flybook reservation software has released an enhanced waiver dash- board designed to expedite the on-site booking experience. To avoid the waiver signing process causing a bottleneck at check-in, customers start at conveniently placed waiver kiosks prior to reaching the check-in desk. Waivers can also be filled out via text-message link or email. The waiver dashboard provides staff with real-time updates on waiver sign offs, easing the management of large groups. The waiver dashboard also allows staff to connect native digital waivers to reservations seamlessly. theflybook.com The Flybook Enhanced Waiver dashboard
T he C-Body harness from CLiC-iT is a full-body harness designed for adven- ture parks. It features a color code for the shoulder, waist, and legs to facilitate easy harnessing, and the easy-to-adjust harness has replaceable leg elastics and aluminum attachment points. Equipped with easy-lock and anti-slip buck- les, the C-Body comes in two sizes to accommodate a wide range of guests. It features a low front attachment point in accordance with EN1227 type A:2015 and A1:2018 standards. clic-it.eu CLIC-IT C-BODY Harness
T he Pole Radar Unit (PRU) from Fulgham’s Inc. is a non-destructive testing tool tailored for utility pole inspection. Using a high-frequen- cy radar, the PRU analyzes the internal wood density of each pole scanned, both above and below ground. This allows for a comprehen- sive view without drilling or excavating. Fulgham’s Inc., technicians and engineers can then review scans and proactively identify issues. fulghamsinc.com Fulgham’s inc. Pole radar unit
R opes Park Equipment’s new access prevention sign is designed to minimize the occurrence of climbers ascending ladders without clip- ping in. The sign physically and visually blocks the initial ladder rungs until the attached rope is pulled down and the climber clips in. The fabric sign is sleeved over 0.5-inch PVC piping to maintain rigidity and visibility. ropesparkequipment.com RPE Access Prevention Sign
NOW OPEN!
CLIMB + ZIP + WHIP!
Photo: Mike Stoner Photography
WATCH OUR VIDEOS AT: zipwhipper.com EXPERIENCE THE ZIPWHIPPER ® ! Call 435-336-8804 to schedule your visit! ZipWhipper, LLC – 340 South Main Street – Coalville, Utah 84017 – Office: 435-336-8804 ✔ 50 – 260 lbs ✔ 30 seconds to climb
✔ Exhilarating drop with pendulum swing ✔ Same experience for ALL ability levels ✔ 95 second cycle time – predictable cycle times and revenue
To learn more about this exciting new product, email: Eric Cylvick- ericc@ziprider.com or Larry Hays- lhaysamusgroup@aol.com
ANALYZING 2023 INCIDENT TRENDS
categories, collisions emerge as a significant contributor, constituting 15 percent of overall claims and averaging $283,000 per incident. Passenger transportation incidents involving vehicles such as ATVs and UTVs account for 10 percent of claims, with an average cost of $400,000 per incident. Falls from height, though comprising a smaller portion of claims at 6 percent, still incur significant costs, averaging $128,000 per claim. Additionally, slip, trip, and fall incidents represent the second largest share of claims at 31 percent, albeit with a lower average cost of $1,500 per claim. Notably, inherent risk factors contribute significantly to incident claims, consti - tuting 38 percent of total claims with an average cost of $7,600 per claim. A note on causation categories: Based on suggestions from operators, we have changed the way we classify and measure claims. This year, we broke down incidents into different categories than in years past. We aim for these cat- egories to be more easily understood and definable. For example, in lieu of the categories “operator error” and “equipment failure” (which accounted for an average 13 percent and 1 percent of claims, respectively) we now include “collisions” and “falls from height.” Because of this change, it is difficult to draw comparisons with last year’s data and against the five-year average for collisions and falls from height. Passen- ger transportation claims are slightly above the average percentage for the past five years, but up significantly in average claim cost. Data for slips, trips, and falls, as well as inherent risk, are in line with the previous five-year trends in terms of both the percentage of claims and average claims costs.
A data-driven perspective on incident causes and costs can help operators understand how to mitigate the risks.
By Cameron Annas, CEO, Granite Insurance
The zip line and aerial adventure in- dustry has experienced exponential growth in the past decade, offering adventure enthusiasts thrilling experiences high above the ground. However, this surge in popularity de- mands an increased focus on safety and risk management. By examin- ing incident trends and associated incident costs, we can gain valuable insights into the safety landscape of this dynamic industry.
per 100,000 guests for 2018-2021 was approximately 2.5. The escalation in incidents underscores the need for con- tinued vigilance in mitigating risks. A note about “developed” numbers: The numbers referenced for 2022 and 2023 in this article are “developed.” Since some claims will not be filed until one, two, or three years after an incident, final inci - dent numbers for a year are typically not fully “developed” until five years out. To account for that delay, we use “development factors,” multipliers that help estimate the eventual developed total for a year. For example, we expect the number of incidents we know about for the calendar year 2023 on Dec. 31, 2023, to grow by 3.5 times, as more in- cidents are recorded over the next five years. The development factor reduces each year that we go back in time, as the “development” or incidents that have not been reported shrinks with each year that we go back.
INCIDENT TRENDS
Granite Insurance has led an incident data analysis study over the past five years in which we have measured several critical data points. According to those data, incident rates within the zip line and aerial park sector have shown an upward trend over recent years. In 2023, there were 4.5 incidents per 100,000 guests. In comparison, 2022 reported 4.3 incidents per 100,000, while the average number of incidents
CAUSATION ANALYSIS
INCIDENT RATE
The financial repercussions of incidents within the industry are substantial, with the average liability claim for 2023 amounting to $136,000. Understanding where claims are com- ing from provides information you can use to prevent these incidents from becoming issues at your operation. Delving deeper into specific incident
INCIDENTS PER 100,000 GUESTS
YEAR 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018
SOLUTIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
4.5 4.3
Collisions Reducing collision risks on zip lines requires a meticulous approach to communication and oversight, as a breakdown in communication is a common cause of collision incidents.
1.29 2.57 3.43 2.69
>>
MAKING YOUR WORK EASIER Safe and user-friendly equipment is a must for adventure park operators. Petzl puts all of its expertise into providing the best equipment for outfitting participants that is simple and efficient to use.
An adventure park solution that includes a PANGA helmet, a SWAN EASYFIT harness, a PROGRESS ADJUST-I lanyard and a TRAC GUIDE LT pulley. www.petzl.com/OPERATORS
INCIDENT TRENDS
assessments help ensure that guides adhere to protocols and reinforce the importance of clear communication in preventing accidents. 5. Furthermore, reinforcing commu- nication signals and their significance during monthly staff meetings fosters a culture of safety awareness. Providing regular reminders and opportunities for discussion allows guides to share ex- periences and reinforce best practices, further mitigating collision risks. By implementing these solutions and maintaining a proactive approach to communication and oversight, opera- tors can minimize the risk of collisions. (For more on zip line communications, read “Successful Sending,” p. 58) Passenger Transportation While the industry maintains standards and protocols for individual zip line rides, protocols for transporting groups of six to 12 people in vans or UTVs along steep, winding gravel roads are lacking—but passenger transportation can pose higher risks than the activity itself. To ensure optimal safety for employees and guests during ATV, UTV, and van transportation, we recommend oper- ators establish an approved driver list, with approved drivers completing the following steps: 1. Submit a motor vehicle report (MVR) and ensure its acceptability. The MVR provides an overview of an employee’s traffic violations over the past five years.
2. Develop company driving rules and procedures that approved drivers must review and adhere to. 3. Conduct vehicle training for each driver with an experienced operator, covering: • An overview of the vehicle and its functionalities. • A ride-along with a trainer to identify common blind spots and offer tips. • A review of driving rules and proce- dures with the employee. • A review of the operation’s expecta- tions of the employee as a profes- sional driver. • The completion and documentation of a daily vehicle checklist. 4. Require approved drivers to pass both a written test and a practical (drive) test. These steps should be internally documented for each approved driver, including the dates of completion for each step, and signed by both the employee and the trainer. Repeat these steps annually for all drivers and docu- ment accordingly. For more information on proper ATV, UTV, or van safety, refer to Granite’s resources page. Preventable Incidents These incidents encompass operational mishaps stemming from non-compli- ance with procedures, errors made during operations, or overlooking exist- ing risks covering a broad spectrum of occurrences including, but not limited to, falls from height and slips, trips, and falls. The primary cause of these
It’s also important to recognize that incident severity rises as arrival speeds increase, and that most claims occur on zip lines with automatic braking, as these systems are most common when participants arrive at speeds that have the most potential for injury.
Some crucial steps to consider:
1. Employ distinctly contrasting termi- nologies for commands. Clear and un- mistakable phrases such as “Send ‘em on down, Sally!” and “Hold, hold, hold, hold!” ensure participants and guides understand when to proceed and when to hold, minimizing the likelihood of collisions. 2. Incorporate backup communication systems to address potential failures in primary communication devices. Estab- lish alternative signals to ensure guides can effectively convey commands even if radios malfunction. 3. To further enhance communication clarity, implement visual signaling mechanisms, such as red and green lights akin to those used in waterparks. These lights provide a clear indication of when it is safe to proceed (“Green”) and when to hold (“Red”), offering an additional layer of safety and reducing the reliance on verbal commands. 4. Regularly audit guides and their communication practices to maintain consistency and effectiveness. Monthly
2023 INCIDENT AND CLAIMS TRENDS
CAUSATION DESCRIPTION
% OF CLAIMS AVERAGE CLAIM COST
Collision
Injury due to a collision with another person or object while on the zip line/aerial course Injury that occurred while being transported in a vehicle such as a van, ATV, or UTV Injury resulting from a fall from a height greater than 3 feet
15%
$283,000
Passenger Transportation Fall from Height
10%
$400,000
6%
$128,998
Slip, Trip, Fall
Ground-level slip, trip, or fall
31%
$1,568
Inherent Risk
Injury that occurred due to the inherent risk of the activity (e.g., trolley ran over fingers, legs swung and hit the brake)
38%
$7,613
INCIDENT TRENDS
review at your facility, ideally con- ducted by a third-party evaluator. We recommend an operational review by a certified reviewer of the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT). 2. Establish and execute a structured guide development program. Recognize that a guide who has recently complet- ed 40 hours of training may not be ade- quately prepared to lead a tour of eight individuals or manage the operations of an aerial activity. Design a program that
allows guides to progress from intro- ductory roles to supportive positions and ultimately to lead guide responsibil- ities. Celebrate each advancement, and embrace continuous development as an integral aspect of your culture. 3. Incorporate refresher training ses- sions into your program. Dedicate time during monthly team meetings to revisit specific technical topics. Encourage active participation by assigning guides to present the chosen topics. 4. Document your training initiatives comprehensively. Rather than viewing development and training as mere checkboxes to tick off, consider them ongoing processes throughout an employee’s tenure with your company. Foster a culture of continuous team de- velopment, making it an inherent part of your organizational identity. By implementing these strategies, you can proactively address preventable risks and cultivate a workforce that is well-equipped to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for participants.
incidents often boils down to a lack of experience or training among employ- ees in their respective roles. These causes are exacerbated by the current competitive job market.
To mitigate preventable incidents, sev- eral proactive measures can be taken:
1. Arrange for a thorough operations
Aerial Rope Course & Zipline Padding
Closed-cell waterproof foam Multiple cover colors Custom screen printing Custom sizes & designs
ONWARD AND UPWARD
As the zip line and aerial park industry continues to evolve, it is imperative to leverage data-driven insights to inform proactive safety strategies and mitigate risks effectively. At Granite Insurance, we prepare this incident trends report an- nually to help the zip line and aerial park community thrive and succeed. Thank you to each of our clients for empower- ing us with your partnership so we can empower the industry with these data. By analyzing incident trends and asso- ciated costs, stakeholders can identify areas for improvement and implement targeted interventions to enhance par- ticipant safety. Through collaborative efforts and a steadfast commitment to best practices, the industry can ensure that thrill-seekers can enjoy exhilarating experiences while minimizing the likeli- hood of accidents and injuries.
T
We encourage each of you to take one small action step based on this study.
www.tubeproinc.com 1-866-882-3776 • info@tubeproinc.com
Author Cameron Annas can be reached at info@graniteinsurance.com.
THE QUESTION: I saw a story about a branch falling on a zip line, and I was wondering, how do I know if your trees are safe? PARK SPY
We try not to throw any curveballs in Park Spy missions (unless it’s a blatant screwball, of course, which we’re upfront about), and this question seemed uncomplicated to us considering, you know, lots of zip line tours travel past trees and stuff. And even if the most recent news cycle didn’t include an incident involving a branch (or tree) falling on a zip line, news of past incidents isn’t hard to find. Plus, branches fall on zip lines—sometimes harmless - ly, sometimes resulting in tragedy. The point is, many staffers reacted as if this question was a curveball when they simply could have eased the Spy’s concerns with some polite reassurance. A couple folks did that and scored high as a result. The rest, however, either got defensive or were rudely ignorant in response to the question. One may think we were talking to jaded, tired staffers in late October, not freshly trained employees with fresh attitudes in May. Been asked an interesting question this season? Send it to dave@adventureparkinsider.com for the Spy to pose to other parks! We won’t tell anyone the question came from you. Plus, if we use it, your park will be immune for that issue.
PARK #1, CA First Contact: Female. API: Stated question.
Staff: No problem, have a great day! Score: 4
Our manager is out on the course now, but I can have him give you a call. API: That would be great, thanks. ( gives contact information ) Staff: OK. Someone will be in touch. API: Thank you. Staff: Yep, goodbye. Score: 2 Comment: Interpersonal communication is clearly not her strength. It’s OK to not know the answer, but it’s not OK to act like you don’t need to know the answer. From her attitude, I feel like my contact information ended up in the garbage. PARK #3, MN First Contact: Male. API: Stated question. Staff: I never heard that story. Which park was that at?
Comment: Good to know they inspect daily and are highly regulated, but a more thorough explanation when talking to a worried customer was need- ed—and getting defensive, and being rude, was not OK. PARK #2, NJ First Contact: Female. API: Stated question. Staff: ( snippy ) What are you asking? API: I was wondering how you make sure your trees are safe for zip-liners? Staff: ( annoyed ) Oh, well, we do daily inspections. API: OK. What does that entail? Staff: I am not sure ( long pause …). I can see if someone here knows. ( on hold …)
Staff: Um, may I ask where you saw that? API: I just saw an article about it while I was browsing the internet. I can’t remember the park’s name.
Staff: ( annoyed ) What was that? API: I just saw it ( interrupted… ).
Staff: ( rude ) A news story? Well, that’s interest- ing. Um, so I can tell you that we go on a course inspection every single day before guests go out there. We are highly regulated. Our number one priority is safety here. Um, that’s really all I have to say about that. API: Great, thanks for explaining that. Staff: And I will be looking into that story so thanks for bringing it to my attention. API: Yeah, no problem. Staff: Can I help you with anything else today? API: No, that was it. Thank you.
API: I can’t remember the name of the park, but I saw it when I was scrolling the internet. Staff: ( uninterested ) OK, yeah, that’s just surpris- ing to hear. API: I figured it was fairly normal since most zip lines are through the trees. Staff: ( annoyed ) No, it’s not common. API: OK. Do you do checks or anything on the zip line? Staff: Yeah, we do safety checks every morning before we let guests on. We have a list that we go through. API: OK, is there anything else I should know to make me feel more comfortable? Staff: No, we run things pretty safe here, so you’re good. API: Alright, thank you. Staff: Yep, goodbye. Score: 3 Comment: “We run things pretty safe here” sounds like he has no clue about the tour’s procedures and doesn’t ease the worries of a potential customer. PARK #4, VA First Contact: Male. API: Stated question. Staff: ( sincere ) Um, how you would know if our trees are safe? API: Yes, exactly. Staff: So, we do inspections every day before the course opens and the surrounding areas of the course itself. We make sure there are no dead branches or things above that would potentially fall. We do a thorough check during all points of the course. API: Oh, great, thank you! Staff: Yep, does that answer your question? API: Yes, it does. Thanks for explaining that. Comment: Was that so difficult?!? He took the time to explain their inspec- tion process and didn’t make me feel bad for asking. Easy peasy. Nice work. PARK #5, TN First Contact: Female. API: Stated question. Staff: Um, I haven’t heard anything about that, and I have been here for a while. API: I wasn’t saying it was at your park, I just saw a story about it. Staff: ( uninterested ) OK. Yeah, I haven’t heard of Staff: Have a great day! API: You too, goodbye. Score: 8
API: Well, great. Thanks for taking the time to explain everything! Staff: No problem. Have a good one. Score: 10 Comment: Folks, that’s how you do it! Of course, as the owner (and clearly the operator, too) he has more knowl- edge and more of a vested interest in treating a caller nicely than, say, most of the other staffers I spoke to. None - theless, he cared about putting my worries to rest and it was refreshing for him to take the time to explain. Identity Revealed: Northwoods Zipline Adventure Tours Debrief: Perhaps we should consider changing the name of this regular feature from “Park Spy” to “Just Be Nice” since that tends to be the most common nugget of advice doled out here. If your operation still has humans answering the phone (which, despite what some may think, will always be the best approach to cus- tomer service—sorry, AI), they should know that being nice goes a long way. A staff member’s attitude on the phone can make or break a guest’s impression of a business. Now, back to the whole branches on zip lines thing. In speaking to arborists and inspectors, the feeling is operators care a lot about the trees that support their zip lines and platforms, but don’t always give the same attention to the trees surrounding the lines. An arborist inspection of a full zip-line course is not cheap, but investing in identifying potential hazards before they become a problem is money well spent. Of course, trees can be unpredictable. Extreme weather can introduce hazards among your trees that didn’t exist before. But that doesn’t mean it’s OK to ignore the trees within reach of your infrastructure and the people using it. Plus, it’s comforting for staff members to be able to confidently tell a potential guest that your operation does every- thing in its power to ensure the trees around your course are a beautiful part of the landscape, not safety hazards.
any accidents or anything about the trees. API: OK. Staff: Yeah, like, nothing. API: OK, but do you do any safety checks or anything? I just want to feel comfortable. Staff: Yeah, they do safety checks all the time and check the wires. API: OK. Anything concerning the trees, though? Staff: ( annoyed ) Well, we are fully insured so we check everything. API: Oh, OK. Staff: Yep, you have a good day ( hangs up ). Score: 1 Comment: Seriously? She should have gone into more detail about their safety checks or grabbed someone who knows the process. Her horrible atti - tude was the rotten icing on the cake. PARK #6, WI Staff: We get inspected annually by an arborist as well as a third-party inspector. So, we always do our annual inspections and then we do monthly inspections, which I personally do as an owner. Then we do daily inspections. API: Oh, great. Staff: And then, as a company, the easiest way we see if a tree is dead or alive is looking at the leaves. So, if you’ve got green leaves, the tree is alive and if you have brown leaves then you probably shouldn’t be doing zippers on it. If that makes sense? API: Yes, it does. Thank you for explaining all of that. Staff: Obviously, branch losses are the easiest way to say, “Hey, we might have an issue here.” And if we ever were to see that then we’d call out our arborist and they would do a more detailed inspection. Since, you know, they are the tree experts ( chuckles ). API: That definitely answers my question. I appreciate that you rely on the experts. Staff: But, you know, if little limbs fall here or there, you know, if you have a storm anywhere by your house, you’re obviously going to see some little limbs on the ground. So, I am not sure what kind of story you heard as far as big or little tree limbs, but little limbs are common to fall off of trees. API: Right, that’s totally understandable. Staff: Yep, they don’t do any damage or anything. First Contact: Male. API: Stated question. Staff: ( sincere ) How would you know? API: Yes.
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator