In just six days, a private inspector from PLH & Associates Worldwide Inc. approved over forty rides at Six Flags Over Texas sometime in the summer of 2013. The certificates appeared to be official. The photos required by the state were turned in. Everything seemed to be in order, at least on paper. Rosa Esparza never made it back down alive after climbing onto the Texas Giant roller coaster in Arlington.
Not just a family was devastated by her death in July 2013. It exposed a system that, upon closer inspection, appeared to be much more of a formality than a safety oversight—the kind of paperwork exercise that checks boxes without necessarily protecting anyone. 52-year-old Esparza’s lap bar did not secure correctly, causing her to fall from the coaster. It was the kind of failure that begs the awkward question: was that ride really inspected at all?
When NBC 5 Investigates started gathering documents, they discovered things that were hard to explain. Over a short period of time, one inspector had approved most of the rides. The inspection photo of the Texas Giant alone, which has a track length of almost a mile and a height of 153 feet, was allegedly taken on the same day as fourteen other rides. According to Mark Goldman, an engineer who had previously testified in accident cases against Six Flags, a thorough inspection of the Texas Giant could require up to three days. It’s difficult to avoid feeling like something isn’t adding up when you look at that disparity.
At the time, Texas law permitted parks to employ private firms to certify their own rides; this arrangement clearly creates a conflict of interest even in the absence of proof of misconduct. Changes to the law were demanded by the state agency in charge of ride safety. Lawmakers took no action. A year went by. The same inspector was still signing certificates when NBC 5 went back to the records in 2014, but this time they were employed by a business that had only changed its name from PLH & Associates to GRB Worldwide. distinct letterhead. comparable patterns.
There isn’t a single document or signature that makes this story especially disturbing. The accumulation of minor details, such as the legislature’s silence, the company’s name change, and the unaltered pace, point to a system that is at ease with its own shortcomings. For its part, Six Flags did not provide insightful public comment on the details of the inspection. In the past, the company has sidestepped these inquiries by focusing on its overall safety record rather than the specifics.
In the US, laws governing amusement parks have always been inconsistent; some states take them seriously, while others hardly give them any thought at all. Texas moved toward the lighter end and may continue to do so. Fixed-site amusement rides are not governed by any federal agency. Rider safety is mostly dependent on where you live, but OSHA can intervene for worker safety and does so on occasion. The majority of inspections carried out under this system might be competent and comprehensive. It’s also possible that the documentation has always appeared more tidy than the actual situation.
The family of Rosa Esparza filed a lawsuit. After being closed for a while, the Texas Giant reopened with some changes. The press briefly scrutinized the inspector, the business, and the certification procedure before turning its focus elsewhere. Unfortunately, it’s still unclear whether the legislature ever took significant action to close the gaps that NBC 5 revealed.
