Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
Chiliburn

Port Botany cruise terminal

Recommended Posts

went out to botany bay for a fishing session yesterday and came across this boat , botany bay is a open area provides very little to no  cover and can be very dangerous , and many times boats break there mooring as well as some container ships in the past.. this was 20-25 k winds 

 

 

IMG_0328.JPG

Edited by in rod we trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe fishing boats shouldn’t be allowed there either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

So maybe fishing boats shouldn’t be allowed there either.

 

Indeed.

 

The above is a red herring in any case. Sydney Harbour can also get 20-25 knot winds, so:

a) Does Rod also want all cruise ships, container ships, ferries, the Navy and so on to stop using Sydney Harbour

b) How has that impacted its safety record, and cruise ships in particular as we are talking about?

 

Again, just another example of him trying to create fear, uncertainty and doubt to suit his bias, instead of objectively looking at the true situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

So maybe fishing boats shouldn’t be allowed there either.

 

 its not a fishing boat its a cruise pleasure craft ..  either way id rather see a small craft like that beached  than a 6000 passenger oasis class ship stuck or worse tipped on its side .. like the Concordia 

 

there is no trawlers in botany bay we brought all them out with a fishing license fee 

_80893447_hi013703519.jpg

Edited by in rod we trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Indeed.

 

The above is a red herring in any case. Sydney Harbour can also get 20-25 knot winds, so:

a) Does Rod also want all cruise ships, container ships, ferries, the Navy and so on to stop using Sydney Harbour

b) How has that impacted its safety record, and cruise ships in particular as we are talking about?

 

Again, just another example of him trying to create fear, uncertainty and doubt to suit his bias, instead of objectively looking at the true situation.

 

Sydney harbor is protected.. its has many bays and high mountains that protect it from bad winds..  we are not talking about Sydney harbor its botany bay that has no protection at all unless a massive breakwall  is constructed 

 

you may use as many meanings you want as to why nobody wants it there , fear , bias , nimbysts ,  but truth of the matter and facts are all out there ..  

 

 

Edited by in rod we trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, GUT2407 said:

So maybe fishing boats shouldn’t be allowed there either.

I think a cruise ship would be safer than a moored boat as it is always manned and ready for anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 

Sydney harbor is protected.. its has many bays and high mountains that protect it from bad winds..  we are not talking about Sydney harbor its botany bay that has no protection at all unless a massive breakwall  is constructed 

 

 

 

The closest mountain to Sydney harbour would be Mt Druitt wouldn't it. I have climbed it and there wasn't much chance of it stopping any wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

I think a cruise ship would be safer than a moored boat as it is always manned and ready for anything.

 

im sure they are , yet you see them crashing into many places and even into another cruise ship.. if a bad wind hit them in the proposed terminal they would be grounded or worse smashed into the current break wall...  

 

we had the maritime union of Australia at the meeting told us many times they had to put container ships out to see due to bad winds and at times struggles to save  them .. they have said a cruise ship in that part of the bay is way to dangerous .. they even refused entry to a ship a week or so due to smoke haze when planes were taking of at a lower level 

Edited by in rod we trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

The closest mountain to Sydney harbour would be Mt Druitt wouldn't it. I have climbed it and there wasn't much chance of it stopping any wind.

 

yeah buddy ya better of staying in Canberra  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 

im sure they are , yet you see them crashing into many places and even into another cruise ship.. if a bad wind hit them in the proposed terminal they would be grounded or worse smashed into the current break wall...  

 

we had the maritime union of Australia at the meeting told us many times they had to put container ships out to see due to bad winds and at times struggles to save  them .. they have said a cruise ship in that part of the bay is way to dangerous .. they even refused entry to a ship a week or so due to smoke haze when planes were taking of at a lower level 

Cruise ships operate a lot differently to container ships, apart from thrusters and such, they also have azipods or propeller bodies that can change direction very easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 

yeah buddy ya better of staying in Canberra  

Now Canberra does have proper mountains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

Cruise ships operate a lot differently to container ships, apart from thrusters and such, they also have azipods or propeller bodies that can change direction very easily.

You really like stuffing  up Rod's stupid irrelevant arguments with logical facts and  common sense......don't let the truth get in the way of a good story please.......I can see the reply now ..oh yeh ..and  how much toxic sludge will the azipods stir up??  They said at the meeting  I went to that azipods stip up more rubbish than Rod ? 😡😡😡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

yeah buddy ya better of staying in Canberra  

 

You may be too, with all the hazards that lurk in Botany Bay. I don't know how you've survived so far!

 

Or is it just that fishermen are much better captains and navigators than those on cruise ships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MicCanberra said:

Cruise ships operate a lot differently to container ships, apart from thrusters and such, they also have azipods or propeller bodies that can change direction very easily.

 and they still smash into ports and other ships with that much technology 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gbenjo said:

You really like stuffing  up Rod's stupid irrelevant arguments with logical facts and  common sense......don't let the truth get in the way of a good story please.......I can see the reply now ..oh yeh ..and  how much toxic sludge will the azipods stir up??  They said at the meeting  I went to that azipods stip up more rubbish than Rod ? 😡😡😡

 

no they said it stirs up more crap than you .. lol your well known for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

You may be too, with all the hazards that lurk in Botany Bay. I don't know how you've survived so far!

 

Or is it just that fishermen are much better captains and navigators than those on cruise ships?

offcourse we are .. we anglers and then moved on to explorers navigated the world and founded countries .. and yes you live in one of them 

 the only hazard in botany bay is royal carribean and state gov   but I doubt that it will be built when we protest in great numbers as planned ..  once the climate activist get hold of the pollution they cause they will be there as well and be boycotting royal carribean and other cruise ships who want to destroy any bays around the globe just for there greed  might not happen over night but you can bet they will be out there protesting , considering one ship at port emits almost the same as 200, 000 cars a day of toxic greenhouse gases

 

 

Edited by in rod we trust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

31 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

 and they still smash into ports and other ships with that much technology 

And we all know that the cargo ships or fishing vessels or even small pleasure craft never have accidents .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

offcourse we are .. we anglers and then moved on to explorers navigated the world and founded countries .. and yes you live in one of them 

LOL, I am pretty sure the ships that came to Australia were not filled with anglers but who knows, perhaps they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

considering one ship at port emits almost the same as 200, 000 cars a day of toxic greenhouse gases

 

 

If we got rid of cars in Sydney, think of how many cruise ships we could have here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

LOL, I am pretty sure the ships that came to Australia were not filled with anglers but who knows, perhaps they were.

 

Well if we go by what we know of Pacific Islander migration, there were definitely fisherman on board to supplement the food supplies for the migrants so one could assume Indigenous Australians perhaps did a similar thing on the way to Australia but to say anglers discovered Australia is probably inaccurate as again if we go by Pacific Islander migration they would normally send a mapping party similar to the Captain Cook voyage where they would map out an area, locating new land masses and then when they came home and gave their report on their findings it would be decided if it is worth sending out colonizing party. The scouts probably did fish to supplement food supplies during their voyages of discovery but they would have been professional sailers and navigators whose sole job was to locate new land, so not anglers who just happen to bump into Australia😉.

Edited by ilikeanswers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Well if we go by what we know of Pacific Islander migration, there were definitely fisherman on board to supplement the food supplies for the migrants so one could assume Indigenous Australians perhaps did a similar thing on the way to Australia but to say anglers discovered Australia is probably inaccurate as again if we go by Pacific Islander migration they would normally send a mapping party similar to the Captain Cook voyage where they would map out an area, locating new land masses and then when they came home and gave their report on their findings it would be decided if it is worth sending out colonizing party. The scouts probably did fish to supplement food supplies during their voyages of discovery but they would have been professional sailers and navigators whose sole job was to locate new land, so not anglers who just happen to bump into Australia😉.

Anglers do not use ships, and the pacific islander or indigenous population may have had some large water craft but nothing that would be called a ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australian aborigines were not a seafaring people. It is believed they crossed into what is now northern Australia when a land bridge existed to the north.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

Australian aborigines were not a seafaring people. It is believed they crossed into what is now northern Australia when a land bridge existed to the north.

And about 45,000 years before the Pacific Islanders arrived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2020 at 4:17 PM, in rod we trust said:

 

as much as I hate people changing topics in a thread  my hat goes of to you and I agree with what you posted 100% …  

it seems  Rodney that you are happy to go off topic IF it suits you.... this is a "discussion" about a new cruise  terminal   for Botany Bay not about fisherman  or Australian history.......stay true to the cause please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MicCanberra said:

Anglers do not use ships, and the pacific islander or indigenous population may have had some large water craft but nothing that would be called a ship.

 

Their boats carried the same amount of people as Arthur Phillip's fleet along with livestock and whatever was needed to start crop production so I think they qualify as ships just as much as anything the ancient Greeks were using. 

 

29 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

Australian aborigines were not a seafaring people. It is believed they crossed into what is now northern Australia when a land bridge existed to the north.

 

The land bridge wasn't there forever and there were multiple migrations to Australia so at some point someone had to use a boat to get here and from the evidence that has been discovered in South Africa we know the relationship humans have with the sea began far earlier than originally thought and after they used all the coastal resources they started to experiment with boats in order to keep surviving. So in fact humans may have in fact become seafarers long not long after the first humans left Africa. History keeps being rewritten as we learn knew things 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • Q&A: Cruise Insurance w/ Steve Dasseos of the TripInsuranceStore.com June 2020
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...