Boatnerd Discussion Forum

The plot is from the reconstruction done by the USCG Marine Board. And, yes it's based on testimony of the officers from the Anderson's pilot-house on November 10,1975. The Marine Board had trouble reconstructing the trackline because the testimony was contradictory, but they did the best they could under the circumstances.

Capt, I really enjoy reading your commentary on the Fitz. You insight is appreciated.

Bill

You also have to ask how accurate is that plot of the course?
Where did that plot come from?

It is not like satellite where you are within a few yards.

Likely it is from someone's memory or a description given by the Anderson. A lot of room for error.

Looking at this map at the Fitz's track line can anyone guess as to the Fitz's distance from 6 fathom shoal including the extra distance of the shoal as was discovered in the 1976 survey thanks?

captrmetz wrote:Capt. Cooper said the Fitzgerald was closer to the shoal then he wanted to be. A 23 foot spot marked on the chart is about 2.5 miles north of the Island, if he did run ground on 6 Fathom Shoal I think it might be on the 23 ft. spot. But I do not know for sure.


When a ship is loaded the wires on the fence rail are tight, and a light ship the wires are loose. If the Fitzgerald touch a shoal and opened up a few plates water would rush in running fore and aft causing the ship to " Hog" the wires would eventually snap by being pulled so tight. But this is just my guess.

Thanks again CaptMetz.

Does anyone know for sure how close the Fitz actually was to 6 fathom shoal thanks?

Capt. Cooper said the Fitzgerald was closer to the shoal then he wanted to be. A 23 foot spot marked on the chart is about 2.5 miles north of the Island, if he did run ground on 6 Fathom Shoal I think it might be on the 23 ft. spot. But I do not know for sure.


When a ship is loaded the wires on the fence rail are tight, and a light ship the wires are loose. If the Fitzgerald touch a shoal and opened up a few plates water would rush in running fore and aft causing the ship to " Hog" the wires would eventually snap by being pulled so tight. But this is just my guess.

Thanks for reply Captain Metz. Would you have a guesstimate as to how close the Fitz's track line was to 6 fathom shoal?

What's the connection between a fence rail down and a stress fracture of the hull ?

To answer you questions:

1. I would say that from the North end of Caribou Island on the 25 foot depth of six Fathom Shoal would be approximately 37 nautical miles to where the wreck was reported to have gone down.
2. I can't really say for sure because in my 33 years of sailing I have never seen a Rogue Wave. I have seen the "Three Sisters" where the third wave was bigger then the two before it.
3. That is the reason I believe she touch Superior Shoals and sustained hull damage. At 0100 she reduced speed and got in the lee of Isle Royale, at 0330 she reported taking in water, 6 Fathom Shoal was to far away.
4. I would say she broke in half on the surface and the stern still having power was hitting the forward end pushing the bow under water.

CaptMetz i was just thinking about asking you for your opinion on the Fitz sinking i hope you are well sir thanks for your insight from an experienced GL skip i have some questions for you.

1. Regarding the discussion on the Fitz's track line & wreck site location and 6 fathom shoals how far east away from the shoals would you estimate the Fitz is resting?

2. Do you agree with Anderson skip Cooper that a massive rogue wave could have put the listing Fitz's bow under?

3. McSorely reported to Cooper her fence rail was down do you think she possibly had a hull stress fracture before she grounded on the shoals?

4. Do you think the Fitz broke up on the surface or after her bow hit bottom?

Thank you in advance.

wlbblw wrote:If McSorley was herd to say not to let anyone on deck, where would the crew have been spread out in the ship? Would they have been stuck wherever they were at the time?

There are side tunnels under the deck that could be used to go fore or aft without going on deck. Remember, this was a 1950's straight decker. It's very common on ocean ships to close the deck in rough weather, especially at night. Signs are hung on the doors stating deck closed. Nobody is allowed out on deck without getting approval from the mate or captain.

Yes I made a dive on Superior Shoals in the 80's. We left Rock Harbor Isle Royale on a calm clear day and if I remember correctly it was about 60 miles out. We could see the shoals because of the tell tail white water that washed over them. We hit a spot that was 25 feet deep and we anchored. I looked around and could not see land in any direction. I have been diving for 25 years and to dive on that spot I did not like it, I do not know why. There were three divers and we dove to all depths, I dove to 100 feet but saw nothing. One diver found a board. We headed back to Isle Royale and I was glad to leave the shoals.

How many crew would have been on watch & where would all of them have been? It sure must have gone down fast.

In rough weather, if you are not on watch, you would be in bed. There is no sitting around talking or reading. There have been times while trying to stay in bed (with my toes over the mattress at one end and holding on with my hands at the other end) there is just the creaking of the boat in stress, and you trying to sleep. Unless extra crew had been called out for some reason, only the watchtanderes, the Captain and maybe the Chief Engineer would have been up at that time of day.

Captain,

Were you on the expedition when they dove the shoals I the early 1980's? I though I saw your name on a few dive expeditions.

If McSorley was herd to say not to let anyone on deck, where would the crew have been spread out in the ship? Would they have been stuck wherever they were at the time? I just wonder if they would have hung out in the Galley or in their rooms? How many crew would have been on watch & where would all of them have been? It sure must have gone down fast. I get the impression that they just didn't really realize how bad off & how close to sinking the ship was & that a run for Whitefish Bay was the only thing to do. I wonder if an abandon ship scenario was even possible if the Anderson had caught up, the seas were so bad that they might not have been able to help them anyway.

I must agree with Captain Paguette, Master of the Wilfred Sykes, in saying that Captain McSoreley was responsible for the sinking of his ship, the cargo, and the deaths of his crew of twenty-nine men.
I remember the night the Fitzgerald went down. We were tied up to our dock in Thunder Bay, Ontario and I saw many ships at anchor in the bay waiting for the storm to die out.
The two ships, Anderson and Fitzgerald, went right up the middle of Lake Superior following one another. If the truth were known I bet each captain thought about going to anchor in Thunder Bay but each one thought, "Well, the other ship is not mentioning going to anchor so I will not mention going to anchor either.” This led to both ships continuing on course. Captain McSoreley was a ‘heavy-weather-man.’
In my career I have been with several ‘heavy-weather-men.’ On one trip that I remember well, we were passing Whitefish Point and gale warnings were up when I mentioned to the captain that all the ships at anchor looked like a small city with all the deck lights showing on each ship. The captain looked at the ships at anchor and said, "Richard, we will make Christians out of our crew tonight.” I thought to myself, oh-boy! Eight hours later I was on the wheel steering for my life. My legs were spread apart as far as I could spread them while trying to steer the given course but the ship was rolling so much that I thought of tying myself to the wheel to keep from falling over. Finally the third mate broke down and yelled to the captain "What in the hell are you trying to do - kill us all?” The old man thought for a while and slowly turned to me and said, "Richard put her head into the wind." As far as I know the captain never said a word to the third mate to answer his question.
I remember two experiences I had on the ship Pierson Daughters. The first one was when we were out bound at Cove Island entrance to Lake Huron and the captain rolled her so much that a ship near us called and said he could see red lead paint on the bottom of the ship. We had damage throughout the ship because she rolled so much. The second one was when we were in a following sea. The captain was in eastern Lake Superior and ran out of lake so he had to turn the ship around and head back into the sea. While turning, the ship almost did not make the turn. She was caught in the trough of a wave. She made the turn but she rolled so much that some of the hatch coamings had cracks.
I think since the Fitzgerald went down the 'heavy-weather-men’ have changed how they proceed. I also believe that the Fitzgerald got too close to Superior Shoals and bottomed out.
The shoals are a dangerous place and are very foreboding and scary. In an east gale I use to go up the north shore and when the wind was on my stern I would alter course to the west, heading for Thunder Bay. I would leave standing orders to pass the shoals five miles north of the shoals and call me ten miles before the shoals. I could see white water five miles off when I passed. I always wonder how many ships sank there in the old days before the Superior Shoals were discovered in the 1930’s.
There were no bodies found in the wheelhouse of the Fitzgerald because when the bow went under crashing out all the pilot house windows tons of water came crashing through and everything that was not secured to the deck went crashing through the chart room and down the captains’ stairway to the next deck below. Just like a funnel or drain pipe. But this is only my thinking, we will probably never know for sure what really happened; we can only guess....
The shipwrecks that I dove on all had their hatch covers laying in the cargo holds’. I think the escaping air in the holds blew the hatch covers off when they sank.
Thanks for reading. Capt. R. Metz