Are Kid Slides OK for Kids Over 48"

[Mom2six]

I think the kid areas at the water parks look like a lot of fun. My DD6 might be skirting 48" when we go, but she is afraid of the big water slides. Will she still be able to go on the little ones and play in that area with her younger brother?

 

[Ali]

It depends on the CM working in the area. When my DS was right at that height he was sometimes allowed and sometimes not. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

 

[anjalee6]

When we were at both typhoon lagoon and blizzard beach this summer they would not let anyone over 48" go down the kids slide. I saw a parent try and they told them no and I also saw many kids that were just a tad bit too tall get turned away. The CMs even have a stick they use to measure with, just like on the rollercoasters, but this time obviously they use it for a different reason.

 

[lroger01]

At Typhoon Lagoon there are two slides to the left of the wave pool (when facing it). This area is about knee deep for an adult and gets only bobbing waves. The slides are partly (or mostly, can't remember) closed and are about as tall (and curved) as a traditional private swimming pool slide. These might be a good alternative to the bigger slides for your child.

I don't know if Blizzard Beach has something similar.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

The height limits are strictly enforced.

A couple of years ago we had a woman who wanted us to let her over 48" son play in Ketchakiddee Creek, including the slides. One of the Lifeguards on duty told her this could not be done, and she started arguing with the Lifeguards. A Lifeguard Coordinator came and she also demanded her child be allowed.

He escalated this up to the Manager of all Lifeguards in the Park, and when she demanded to speak to his supervisor he called for the Park Operations Manager.

He was very easy about it. He told her something to the effect of: "Madam, if you say another word about this I will have these Security Officers who are with me escort you and your child out of the Park."

Case closed!

 

[Colleen27]

Our experience has been that a child who is near the limit and playing with a younger sibling will be allowed. I'm not sure if it varies from lifeguard to lifeguard or if the height limit is more strictly enforced for certain experiences, but both of my older kids have been allowed to play with their little sister in the "Tike's Peak" area at Blizzard Beach (somehow we keep going when Typhoon Lagoon is closed; haven't been there since '05 so I don't have any recent experience to share). IIC the tube slide was the only one where the restriction was enforced, which makes sense since the tubes are little kid sized.

Also, at Blizzard Beach there is a "big kid" area that has longer but still tame slides than the height-limited kiddie area, along with a walk-on-the-lily-pads (icebergs?) pool, zip line, etc. That area is geared towards upper elem/tween ages and would likely be the best fit for a child over 48" who isn't interested in the really big slides..

 

[Mom2six]

The height limits are strictly enforced.

A couple of years ago we had a woman who wanted us to let her over 48" son play in Ketchakiddee Creek, including the slides. One of the Lifeguards on duty told her this could not be done, and she started arguing with the Lifeguards. A Lifeguard Coordinator came and she also demanded her child be allowed.

He escalated this up to the Manager of all Lifeguards in the Park, and when she demanded to speak to his supervisor he called for the Park Operations Manager.

He was very easy about it. He told her something to the effect of: "Madam, if you say another word about this I will have these Security Officers who are with me escort you and your child out of the Park."

Case closed!

Why can it not be done? What is the reasoning to disallowing a 49" child? I get a child that is too small going on large rides not designed to hold them in is a safety hazard, but a tall young child is not a safety hazard on a little slide.

You don't say anything about her being disruptive. Was her child much older than the other children there? Asking to talk to a higher supervisor seems like a ridiculous reason to be threatened with getting kicked out. Perhaps he just didn't want his day interrupted?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Why can it not be done? What is the reasoning to disallowing a 49" child? I get a child that is too small going on large rides not designed to hold them in is a safety hazard, but a tall young child is not a safety hazard on a little slide.

You don't say anything about her being disruptive. Was her child much older than the other children there? Asking to talk to a higher supervisor seems like a ridiculous reason to be threatened with getting kicked out. Perhaps he just didn't want his day interrupted?

It's a safety issue, just as if the child was too short for a major ride. Some features and attractions are suited for, safe, or practical for bigger kids. As the parent of a 2 year old who's been knocked over, accidentally and on purpose, mowed down by rambunctious older children in areas designed for little kids (and no parent in sight to tell them the area is for the little kids, not the kids who are old enough to go elsewhere, and their play is both disruptive and unsafe), and seen little kids almost bullied by the larger kids, I appreciate when places enforce the height limitations.

As for the situation above, by demanding to speak to everybody under the sun in an attempt to get her way after being told what the rules are, she was being disruptive. Again, it's so rarely that Disney puts these kinds of guests in their place and I'm glad for when they do it for issues like this where there's a safety issue involved.

 

[bumbershoot]

Our experience has been that a child who is near the limit and playing with a younger sibling will be allowed.

Gotta say that that is REALLY unfair to an only child.

Why can it not be done? What is the reasoning to disallowing a 49" child? I get a child that is too small going on large rides not designed to hold them in is a safety hazard, but a tall young child is not a safety hazard on a little slide.

Bigger kids are more dangerous to littler kids, especially when water is involved. My son was little (3) and playing in the water spray area at DCA once, and a big kid was running around in ways a 3 year old simply can't do. The inevitable happened despite our best efforts to stop it, and the big boy slammed into my guy, knocking him to the ground. And then the boy used his running ability to get the heck out of there.

If there are height-based restrictions, they should be solidly enforced.

 

[Sparkly]

Why can it not be done? What is the reasoning to disallowing a 49" child? I get a child that is too small going on large rides not designed to hold them in is a safety hazard, but a tall young child is not a safety hazard on a little slide.

You don't say anything about her being disruptive. Was her child much older than the other children there? Asking to talk to a higher supervisor seems like a ridiculous reason to be threatened with getting kicked out. Perhaps he just didn't want his day interrupted?

Probably because they don't want bigger kids knocking over the little ones- think about all of the complaints from parents if that happened. Most likely Disney don't want parents complaining and having to deal with them asking for compensation, and you know that would happen.

I haven't been to that part of the park but it's probably part of a bigger play area and it's not really a case of "Oh, he'll just go down the slide and leave" because they most likely won't.

I hope you work something out OP- I'm not very confident in the water so give the bigger slides a miss and I'm five foot tall!

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Gotta say that that is REALLY unfair to an only child.

It's been my experience in the last few years that Disney has been really inflexible in this area, now. I think minor exceptions were made just for the convenience and comfort of kids, but now, CMs are universally strict in this area. Their jobs ride on it.

 

[Mom2six]

I hope you work something out OP- I'm not very confident in the water so give the bigger slides a miss and I'm five foot tall!

We'll have to skip the water parks. I can't have my six year old daughter off playing on big kid stuff while I'm in the little tykes area with my four year old. And I can't have her just stand there to the side - especially if it is a big area as I couldn't watch her effectively, and how could I ask her to just stand there doing nothing? My four year old can't go on the big kid stuff. So, we just won't bother getting WP&M tickets. That's a big disappointment, but what are you going to do? It won't work if you don't have all toddlers, or all big kids.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

We'll have to skip the water parks. I can't have my six year old daughter off playing on big kid stuff while I'm in the little tykes area with my four year old. And I can't have her just stand there to the side - especially if it is a big area as I couldn't watch her effectively, and how could I ask her to just stand there doing nothing? My four year old can't go on the big kid stuff. So, we just won't bother getting WP&M tickets. That's a big disappointment, but what are you going to do? It won't work if you don't have all toddlers, or all big kids.

If one is too scared to do the bigger rides and the other is too little, honestly, the water park would most likely be a waste of money. I'd use the pool at the hotel, visit the water areas at MK, and call that done.

 

[Mom2six]

If one is too scared to do the bigger rides and the other is too little, honestly, the water park would most likely be a waste of money. I'd use the pool at the hotel, visit the water areas at MK, and call that done.

Yes, well, we'll have to. Not alot of choice when you have a 4 and 6 year old, I guess. We'll still have plenty of fun.

The whole Ketchakiddie creek area looks like my two younger children would have a blast...but I guess you have to read the fine print and know ahead of time that it is only for those under 48 inches. There's no way that all the children they picture under Ketchakiddie creek (on the DISNEY website) are around 3 years old, or under 48 inches. That seems deceptive to me - why visually mislead people? It won't ruin the trip or anything (we've never gone in the past)...I just wonder why Disney sort of excludes the whole 6 to 8 year old crowd for water parks.

This is exactly why I asked here and now, so I know what to plan and what type of tickets to buy! I just can't help feeling bad for people who mainly look at the pictures on the website and plan that way. Many of those kids pictured there look like early elementary school for sure.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

Yes, well, we'll have to. Not alot of choice when you have a 4 and 6 year old, I guess. We'll still have plenty of fun.

The whole Ketchakiddie creek area looks like my two younger children would have a blast...but I guess you have to read the fine print and know ahead of time that it is only for those under 48 inches. There's no way that all the children they picture under Ketchakiddie creek (on the DISNEY website) are around 3 years old, or under 48 inches. That seems deceptive to me - why visually mislead people? It won't ruin the trip or anything (we've never gone in the past)...I just wonder why Disney sort of excludes the whole 6 to 8 year old crowd for water parks.

This is exactly why I asked here and now, so I know what to plan and what type of tickets to buy! I just can't help feeling bad for people who mainly look at the pictures on the website and plan that way. Many of those kids pictured there look like early elementary school for sure.

I just want to point out that my 7.5 year old daughter just surpassed 48" a month ago and her 4.5 year old brother is still several inches short of 48", so it's not just three year old children. And while I understand your frustration and don't think your older child would hurt a smaller child, if they don't draw the line firmly somewhere, then little kids will get hurt by larger children who are less responsible than your child and/or are less well monitored.

It stinks, I know, but there is logic behind it.

 

[Colleen27]

Gotta say that that is REALLY unfair to an only child.

Maybe. But as you point out the rules are there to stop rambunctious older kids from creating an unsafe playspace for younger kids, and older siblings playing with a younger are generally playing at the younger's ability level not running around like kids their own age.

 

[rapunzels]

I just wonder why Disney sort of excludes the whole 6 to 8 year old crowd for water parks.

They don't. My 7 year old went to both parks this Summer, and had a great time on plenty of slides. There was PLENTY for her to get to do, and we didn't even get through everything.

 

[Suellen]

I have a DD7 over 48 and DD5 under. They have NEVER disallowed my older DD to take her sister in. We go often to Blizzard Beach.

 

[Mom2six]

I just want to point out that my 7.5 year old daughter just surpassed 48" a month ago and her 4.5 year old brother is still several inches short of 48", so it's not just three year old children. And while I understand your frustration and don't think your older child would hurt a smaller child, if they don't draw the line firmly somewhere, then little kids will get hurt by larger children who are less responsible than your child and/or are less well monitored.

It stinks, I know, but there is logic behind it.

Oh, I just mention 3 year old because the replies all seemed to center around 2 and 3 years olds being hurt by older children. When you look up height and weight charts, the average 6 to 7 year old is 48 inches tall. I understand having little kid areas! I even agree with that, and I'm fine with tikes peak and ketchakid being for little kids. I just wonder why when you look at pictures of the attractions on the website, half of the pictures are of children who are obviously older than the under 6/7 year old crowd.

Upon reading the descriptions of some the areas, the 48 inch height requirement seems patently absurd. The description of the ski patrol area says for those too big for tikes peak, that the water is over 8 feet deep, and on the side it says height requirement is under 48 inches. My 5 year old certainly wouldn't be hopping across pieces of "ice" over 8 foot deep water! Seems crazy to me! And the pictures they have of the kids sliding down (the 4 of them next to each other, 2 of those girls are close to preteens). Why not just show little kids if the area is for little kids? That's what's gotten me irritated here.

We were only considering the water parks because of my teenagers, and the Disney Quest. But if there isn't anything for my DD to do there, then we'll skip it. I think that it is a shame that they only have areas for little kids, and then the huge slides. Why not make an area geared toward the 5 to 9 year olds? They like to slide but may not have the swimming skills to handle plunging under the water comfortably. A place geared toward teh 46 to 50 inchers.

 

[Mom2six]

I have a DD7 over 48 and DD5 under. They have NEVER disallowed my older DD to take her sister in. We go often to Blizzard Beach.

Well, that's good to know...my DD is a big help reigning in her little brother. She's only 45 inches right now, but next September? Who knows. I don't know if I would risk it, getting tickets and then having her not be able to go in the play area.