Cococay WaterPark FYI for Parents: Brochures Incorrect On Height Restriction

[Rccsunbaby]

Thought I would let parents who have young children going to the Thrill WaterPark know that the brochures are incorrect for the height requirements at Splash Summit. These are the ones that include the raft Waterslides (SlingShot, Twister, Splash Speedway racer slides only).

 

All of the brochures (including the detailed one that you get in your stateroom the night before arrival at Cococay) state that the Rider min. height: 48" (OR 40" with life vest).

This is not the case. If your child is not 48" tall they will be denied regardless of the life vest.

 

We were told to take off the life vest since life vests are not allowed on any of the water slide rides at Splash Summit. After doing so, we were then told that our youngest was too short to ride by the lifeguard manning the bottom of the stairs. After asking the lifeguard, he said that the brochures are wrong and that they need to be updated.

 

There were several other parents that encountered this as well with crying children after being told they could not ride.

[poncho1973]

Thanks for the info, but (in the kindest, but frankest way possible) aren't crying children a million times more acceptable than hurt children or worse?  Ultimately, it is a weird and disappointing goof, but who cares if kids are crying about it?

[Mikew0805]

2 minutes ago, poncho1973 said:

Thanks for the info, but (in the kindest, but frankest way possible) aren't crying children a million times more acceptable than hurt children or worse?  Ultimately, it is a weird and disappointing goof, but who cares if kids are crying about it?

Right... Safety first!

[drrich2]

Actually, there's a lot to be said for letting parents take a look at the prospective ride, consider their extensive first hand knowledge of their own kids, and make a parental decision, instead of having the company pull a 'Big Brother' move to disappoint and upset kids who got all excited looking forward to something special the brochure said they could do.

 

Thanks for posting and letting us know. Pretty much nothing's perfectly safe, and the extent to which some things are taken at times suggests more about placating legal liability concerns than 'safety.'

 

Growing up as an often free-range kid in the rural south, I imagine my childhood would've looked like a litany of near-death experiences by today's standards...🤗

 

Richard.

[ReneeFLL]

24 minutes ago, drrich2 said:

.......Actually, there's a lot to be said for letting parents take a look at the prospective ride, consider their extensive first hand knowledge of their own kids, and make a parental decision, instead of having the company pull a 'Big Brother' move to disappoint and upset kids who got all excited looking forward to something special the brochure said they could do.....

 

 

Maybe for you, but how many parents would ignore safety concerns and let their precious little Johnny go on the rides so that they don't have to hear him throw a  temper tantrum?  Think about all the parents that let their kids run wild because they don't want to have to deal with them? Their response is "It's OUR vacation and they can do what they want." I have seen it posted on here and have heard it on the pool deck. When something goes wrong they will blame Royal and not take the responsibility for their own actions. Ugh!

 

I think Royal should put a note in the brochures stating there is a misprint and give the correct info. It really isn't fair for them to say one thing and do another and not even try to correct it while on board.

Edited June 9, 2019 by ReneeFLL

[drrich2]

Parents aren't perfect by far, but at least they have opportunity to know their kids individually. Just to make the point, our little girl is 6, and slightly on the short side of average - I think right at 44 inches tall. She's got a same-age friend with a growth hormone problem (which is getting treated) who, before getting out of Kindergarten, was already 4-feet tall. Same age, but guess who has access to lots more rides?

 

I have some idea of what kind of world the nanny state mentality tends to create. Some is okay, but it's often taken too far.

 

No one has a problem with posting suggested guidelines to inform family decisions. 

 

On the other hand, bad brochures shouldn't be given out.

[poncho1973]

1 hour ago, drrich2 said:

Actually, there's a lot to be said for letting parents take a look at the prospective ride, consider their extensive first hand knowledge of their own kids, and make a parental decision, instead of having the company pull a 'Big Brother' move to disappoint and upset kids who got all excited looking forward to something special the brochure said they could do.

 

Thanks for posting and letting us know. Pretty much nothing's perfectly safe, and the extent to which some things are taken at times suggests more about placating legal liability concerns than 'safety.'

 

Growing up as an often free-range kid in the rural south, I imagine my childhood would've looked like a litany of near-death experiences by today's standards...🤗

 

Richard.

 

1. I was kind of a free-range kid who did all sorts of stupid stuff, but we (as a planet) have gotten a bit smarter about safety in 2019.  I don't think the world needs to be coated in bubblewrap, but we can be/are smarter.
2. I think there have been some books and a couple of movies about what you are describing... reference some terms like "Willy Wonka" and "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory" and "Roald Dahl" for instance.

[Merion_Mom]

3 hours ago, Rccsunbaby said:

 

Thought I would let parents who have young children going to the Thrill WaterPark know that the brochures are incorrect for the height requirements at Splash Summit. These are the ones that include the raft Waterslides (SlingShot, Twister, Splash Speedway racer slides only).

 

All of the brochures (including the detailed one that you get in your stateroom the night before arrival at Cococay) state that the Rider min. height: 48" (OR 40" with life vest).

This is not the case. If your child is not 48" tall they will be denied regardless of the life vest.

 

We were told to take off the life vest since life vests are not allowed on any of the water slide rides at Splash Summit. After doing so, we were then told that our youngest was too short to ride by the lifeguard manning the bottom of the stairs. After asking the lifeguard, he said that the brochures are wrong and that they need to be updated.

 

There were several other parents that encountered this as well with crying children after being told they could not ride.

 

 

Here's my "thing".  

 

Updated?  

 

UPDATED?!?!?!??!?!

 

The dang thing hasn't even been open but a couple of months!  😮

[CRUISEFAN0001]

5 hours ago, Merion_Mom said:

Here's my "thing".  

 

Updated?  

 

UPDATED?!?!?!??!?!

 

The dang thing hasn't even been open but a couple of months!  😮

Thinking the same thing.

 

Also wondering why anyone would consider having a child that small (under 48") use a number of the taller/larger slides in the Waterpark...and while they don't offer bubblewrap...they also don't hand our common sense pills to parents for convenience either.

 

There are plenty of water activities for various ages at the Waterpark. That doesn't mean all kids have to (or should) use everything that's offered regardless of size and age. Fun can be had without risking kids injury/safety.

[Nettee]

Thank you for posting this.  It is something that is very difficult to find out in advance and if the water slide is the main draw for the holiday (which it would be in my family’s case). It is worth knowing before booking whether the children will be allowed on.

 

Yes, safety first but let us have the information to decide what to book.

[CRUISEFAN0001]

14 minutes ago, Nettee said:

Thank you for posting this.  It is something that is very difficult to find out in advance and if the water slide is the main draw for the holiday (which it would be in my family’s case). It is worth knowing before booking whether the children will be allowed on.

 

Yes, safety first but let us have the information to decide what to book.

Agree.  Likely this was a simple typo that was missed before the correction to 48".  Since both heights were provided...a simple call to Royal would likely clarify things to eliminate any confusion (prior to them catching and correcting the error).

[notmyrealnameoremail]

8 hours ago, drrich2 said:

Parents aren't perfect by far, but at least they have opportunity to know their kids individually. Just to make the point, our little girl is 6, and slightly on the short side of average - I think right at 44 inches tall. She's got a same-age friend with a growth hormone problem (which is getting treated) who, before getting out of Kindergarten, was already 4-feet tall. Same age, but guess who has access to lots more rides?

 

I have some idea of what kind of world the nanny state mentality tends to create. Some is okay, but it's often taken too far.

 

No one has a problem with posting suggested guidelines to inform family decisions. 

 

On the other hand, bad brochures shouldn't be given out.

 

I agree 100% that the brochure should have been correct from day one and needs to be corrected right away.

 

But, there are very few parents that are qualified to determine if it is safe for their under 48" tall child to ride these slides.  The height restriction is not a "suggested guideline". The restriction has been determined by experts to prevent serious injury or death.  What you are suggesting is the equivalent of the average motorist deciding that a bridge over a gorge with a posted weight limit of 5 tons looking at the bridge and deciding it would ok for them to drive  a 15 ton truck over it.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

9 hours ago, drrich2 said:

Parents aren't perfect by far, but at least they have opportunity to know their kids individually. Just to make the point, our little girl is 6, and slightly on the short side of average - I think right at 44 inches tall. She's got a same-age friend with a growth hormone problem (which is getting treated) who, before getting out of Kindergarten, was already 4-feet tall. Same age, but guess who has access to lots more rides?

 

I have some idea of what kind of world the nanny state mentality tends to create. Some is okay, but it's often taken too far.

 

No one has a problem with posting suggested guidelines to inform family decisions. 

 

On the other hand, bad brochures shouldn't be given out.

I think it's one thing for parents to judge based on something subjective...  like "how old should my child be to roam around the ship alone?"  THAT'S going to be something that can be different for every child/family.  Because age isn't an indication of maturity.

 

However, when you have something objective like "you need to be this tall to ride this ride", how is a parent qualified to say "this rule is wrong"?  It's a safety thing, and is based totally on a provable fact.  Age doesn't matter.  Or are you ok with saying a parent can overrule this and their 36" child should be able to ride something built for those 48"+?  After all, the parent "knows" their child, right?

[Ourusualbeach]

9 hours ago, drrich2 said:

Parents aren't perfect by far, but at least they have opportunity to know their kids individually. Just to make the point, our little girl is 6, and slightly on the short side of average - I think right at 44 inches tall. She's got a same-age friend with a growth hormone problem (which is getting treated) who, before getting out of Kindergarten, was already 4-feet tall. Same age, but guess who has access to lots more rides?

 

I have some idea of what kind of world the nanny state mentality tends to create. Some is okay, but it's often taken too far.

 

No one has a problem with posting suggested guidelines to inform family decisions. 

 

On the other hand, bad brochures shouldn't be given out.

We’ve been to many water parks and amusement parks and I have yet to see one where they had a parental  option for allowing their kids on rides based on the parents “knowing their child”.  Every single ride has had a height or weight limit or both.

 

I would suspect that in the vast majority of cases these limits are suggested by the ride manufacturer and required by the operators insurance company.

[CRUISEFAN0001]

1 minute ago, Ourusualbeach said:

We’ve been to many water parks and amusement parks and I have yet to see one where they had a parental  option for allowing their kids on rides based on the parents “knowing their child”.  Every single ride has had a height or weight limit or both.

 

I would suspect that in the vast majority of cases these limits are suggested by the ride manufacturer and required by the operators insurance company.

Yup.

[drrich2]

2 hours ago, notmyrealnameoremail said:

The height restriction is not a "suggested guideline". The restriction has been determined by experts to prevent serious injury or death.

 

Has it really? I did a little quick Googling and didn't turn up any basis. My suspicion is that it's likely arbitrary, perhaps based on average (or low average) heights associated with some age or grade group. 

 

Recommendations aren't always based in experts having proven much of anything, and sometimes catch on like they're natural law. The recommendations that one should drink 8 glasses of water per day, and the assertion that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, have both come under scrutiny. Many people just believe what they hear said. I would to know the evidence base for that. 

1 hour ago, Ourusualbeach said:

 

I would suspect that in the vast majority of cases these limits are suggested by the ride manufacturer and required by the operators insurance company.

 

I agree. Be interested to know what that's based on. 

 

2 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

It's a safety thing, and is based totally on a provable fact.

 

I doubt it is. I suspect it's based on arbitrary assertion, but no way to know for sure. 

 

2 hours ago, S.A.M.J.R. said:

Age doesn't matter.  Or are you ok with saying a parent can overrule this and their 36" child should be able to ride something built for those 48"+?

 

That's a bit extreme (but the kid could be a midget, and the safety concern mental not physical!). 

 

If people had received false advertising, I'd probably spot them 4 inches or so if reasonable if I could. 

 

We're not changing the world here. Just sharing me view about what I perceive to be another example of an over-paternalistic nanny state that seems to have cheer leaders.

 

Richard.

[Ourusualbeach]

1 hour ago, drrich2 said:

 

 

 

We're not changing the world here. Just sharing me view about what I perceive to be another example of an over-paternalistic nanny state that seems to have cheer leaders.

 

Richard.

Not really sure how you can label people in here cheerleaders when Royal is simply doing what ever other watermark and amusement park is doing.  

 

If it were here a case of other attractions allowing parental flexibility with age / height / weight restrictions then I could see your point.

 

Until you can provide specific major amusement parks that allow this flexibility then you really can’t complain about anything that Royal is doing with regards to their restrictions.  

[time4u2go]

Would an adult that's less than 48" also be prevented from the slides?

Edited June 9, 2019 by time4u2go

[Merion_Mom]

1 hour ago, drrich2 said:

 

Has it really? I did a little quick Googling and didn't turn up any basis. My suspicion is that it's likely arbitrary, perhaps based on average (or low average) heights associated with some age or grade group. 

 

Recommendations aren't always based in experts having proven much of anything, and sometimes catch on like they're natural law. The recommendations that one should drink 8 glasses of water per day, and the assertion that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, have both come under scrutiny. Many people just believe what they hear said. I would to know the evidence base for that. 

 

I agree. Be interested to know what that's based on. 

 

 

I doubt it is. I suspect it's based on arbitrary assertion, but no way to know for sure. 

 

 

That's a bit extreme (but the kid could be a midget, and the safety concern mental not physical!). 

 

If people had received false advertising, I'd probably spot them 4 inches or so if reasonable if I could. 

 

We're not changing the world here. Just sharing me view about what I perceive to be another example of an over-paternalistic nanny state that seems to have cheer leaders.

 

Richard.

 

 

Richard, please do the research on line and come back and let us know whether these things are arbitrary or justified.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

2 hours ago, drrich2 said:

Recommendations aren't always based in experts having proven much of anything, and sometimes catch on like they're natural law. The recommendations that one should drink 8 glasses of water per day, and the assertion that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, have both come under scrutiny. Many people just believe what they hear said. I would to know the evidence base for that. 

2 hours ago, drrich2 said:

 

Has it really? I did a little quick Googling and didn't turn up any basis. My suspicion is that it's likely arbitrary, perhaps based on average (or low average) heights associated with some age or grade group. 

 

Recommendations aren't always based in experts having proven much of anything, and sometimes catch on like they're natural law. The recommendations that one should drink 8 glasses of water per day, and the assertion that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, have both come under scrutiny. Many people just believe what they hear said. I would to know the evidence base for that. 

 

I agree. Be interested to know what that's based on. 

 

 

I doubt it is. I suspect it's based on arbitrary assertion, but no way to know for sure. 

 

 

That's a bit extreme (but the kid could be a midget, and the safety concern mental not physical!). 

 

If people had received false advertising, I'd probably spot them 4 inches or so if reasonable if I could. 

 

We're not changing the world here. Just sharing me view about what I perceive to be another example of an over-paternalistic nanny state that seems to have cheer leaders.

 

Richard.

You're not getting it.  A recommendation that someone drinks 8 glasses of water a day is just that, a recommendation.  It's subjective.  A height (or weight) restriction on a ride isn't a recommendation, it's made for safety based on physics.  It doesn't matter what someone's age is, the height (or weight) is the determining factor.  

 

You SUSPECT it's an arbitrary assertion, but have nothing to base it on.  How about you talk to some engineers and let them tell you how they determine the limit of something?  That can be anything from bridges (how much weight can they carry), buildings (how high can they build), rope (again, how much weight will it support), hoses (how much pressure), etc.  

 

Do some research, post it here, and then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.

 

[brentconn]

3 hours ago, drrich2 said:

 

Has it really? I did a little quick Googling and didn't turn up any basis. My suspicion is that it's likely arbitrary, perhaps based on average (or low average) heights associated with some age or grade group. 

 

Recommendations aren't always based in experts having proven much of anything, and sometimes catch on like they're natural law. The recommendations that one should drink 8 glasses of water per day, and the assertion that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, have both come under scrutiny. Many people just believe what they hear said. I would to know the evidence base for that. 

 

I agree. Be interested to know what that's based on. 

 

 

I doubt it is. I suspect it's based on arbitrary assertion, but no way to know for sure. 

 

 

That's a bit extreme (but the kid could be a midget, and the safety concern mental not physical!). 

 

If people had received false advertising, I'd probably spot them 4 inches or so if reasonable if I could. 

 

We're not changing the world here. Just sharing me view about what I perceive to be another example of an over-paternalistic nanny state that seems to have cheer leaders.

 

Richard.

 

I think everyone on this board needs to pray that you have no children and/or you do not supervise children in any capacity. So you would spot a kid 4 inches on a ride? I'll bet you think it's ok to leave a gun on the night stand as long as you talk to your kids about firearm safety.

Edited June 9, 2019 by brentconn

[drrich2]

Now that I'm not in a hurry, perhaps I can better formulate my thoughts so as not to venture off too far into dead horse-beating territory. 

 

1.) I know amusement and water park rides have rules restrictions and front-line staff aren't empowered to make much exception (though real world experience varies a bit on this).

 

2.) I am not willing to assume these restrictions are based in solid science and they are not universal. I don't expect to find them online, and a brief effort didn't. I'm not assuming they're totally pulled out of a hat, nor am I willing to believe the basis is compelling. At best I figure actuaries (not engineers) would've been consulted. And most definitely lawyers.

 

3.) The original poster described families being given one set of requirements, by brochure, where parental oversight and life vest were required for kids at least 40" but under 48". Reasonable. Without advance warning, after kids were all worked up excited to get to do this, they were forbidden on the basis of another standard. This upset a number of people, some fairly badly.

 

4.) Mistakes happen. An effort from RCI to 'make it good' with some perk (e.g.: gift credit at the candy shop, etc...) could've gone a long way to wash away potential bad blood. Otherwise, the spirit in which the situation is left sounds like 'Oops, you're screwed.' Not good.

 

5.) The 1st two replies appear to assume there must have been a substantial threat to these children's safety, and who cares that these children cried, we should be glad they were denied. That's what I reacted to.

 

6.) I've been challenged to consider broader practices in the amusement industry. Okay. On a prior cruise, I've seen our daughter, then maybe a 1/2" shy of 42", turned away from using the purple slide at Splashaway Bay. If you've all seen this slide, that looks ridiculous, and very inconsistent with what kids that size are allowed to ride elsewhere. 

 

7.) Speaking of which, on that same cruise at a stop in Aruba, we did an excursion with water slides, including a much larger blue one she was allowed to use, we watched to see things went okay, and it was fine. 

 

In brief, from personal observation I believe RCI's practices don't bear giving the benefit of the doubt that this added restriction was due to a serious safety risk to these kids, and I think RCI should've made a gesture to make it good. 

 

7 minutes ago, brentconn said:

I think everyone on this board needs to pray that you have no children and/or you do not supervise children in any capacity. So you would spot a kid 4 inches on a ride? I'll bet you think it's ok to leave a gun on the night stand as long as you talk to your kids about firearm safety.

 And if your reaction to one off-the-cuff comment made with some hyperbole is to presume to judge my fitness to parent and assume I think it's okay to leave a gun on the nightstand, perhaps we should pray you never serve on a jury?

Edited June 9, 2019 by drrich2

[brentconn]

I was just reacting to your comments. If you want to speak hyperbole, can you please put an asterisk by any of your statements that are embellished or exaggerated? Thanks.

[drrich2]

You were reacting to your interpretation. Let's take a look at the context. The original standard, in the brochure, would've allowed kids down to 40" tall to ride, with life vest and parental supervision. Employees subsequently claimed no, only 48" could ride (apparently without all that?). It seems unlikely to me the original was a typo. (after all, it didn't say 4", 28", etc...); seems likely the brochure was correct to a standard somebody approved, that someone else subsequently overruled. 

 

I was asked if I was okay with saying a parent can overrule this and their 36" child should be able to ride something built for those 48"+?

 

I gave a specific context "If people had received false advertising, I'd probably spot them 4 inches or so if reasonable if I could. " Note the 'if reasonable' specifier.

 

While you can disagree with my position, or the wisdom thereof, claiming everyone on the board needs to pray I have no children and/or supervise them in any capacity, and you 'bet' I think it's okay to leave a gun on the nightstand as long as I talk to them about gun safety?

 

Richard.

[CRUISEFAN0001]

WOW - this thread has certainly made something quite easy sound incredibly difficult for a few.

 

The OP was simply sharing the error (type/misprint) in the height RESTRICTION for the Water Park slides/activities. Nice of them to point that out for anyone planning ahead to use the Coco Cay Thrill Water Park.

 

When it comes to the RULES - It's 48"...not 44"...not 40"...not 36"...etc.   

 

No 4" high heels for 4 year olds to circumvent the POLICY.

 

Easy peasy.