Boatnerd Discussion Forum

N Oldie wrote:a perfect explanation for a fence that is laid down would be that the hull hogged due to grounding or shoaling, and the force snapped the cables.

If Fitzgerald was taking blue water over her deck, a tree wouldn't had to have knocked the fence down to come aboard. And being softer than the steel it was supposed to have damaged, the thought of a tree inflicting a mortal wound seems like a stretch. Not quite like cutting diamond with a pat of butter, but something like it.

Never said, or intended, that a tree did a fatal blow to the Fritz, just said that is one way you could get fence damage. Having a full tree or large log blast on deck in a big wave sure could knock over a couple rail posts or snap a cable or 2.

a perfect explanation for a fence that is laid down would be that the hull hogged due to grounding or shoaling, and the force snapped the cables.

If Fitzgerald was taking blue water over her deck, a tree wouldn't had to have knocked the fence down to come aboard. And being softer than the steel it was supposed to have damaged, the thought of a tree inflicting a mortal wound seems like a stretch. Not quite like cutting diamond with a pat of butter, but something like it.

hayhugh2 wrote:I have never heard of one being affected by weather or waves until the Fitzgerald incident.

This is why I always through maybe a tree got washed aboard in the high waves and damaged the fence rail. And as someone else asked on this thread about the fence being sucked into the prop, unless the fence cables were broken, and a lot of it knocked down, there is no way it would be over the side and into the prop.

The fence rails on the side of Great Lakes vessels are made up of 1/2" X 4" by @4' bar steel with Holes drilled to accept 1/2" cable. They are secured by fittings that will accept the 1/2" X 4" bar which were either riveted or welted to the gunnel. I have never heard of one being affected by weather or waves until the Fitzgerald incident.

Can someone give an example of other Boat's looseing there fence rails?It must have happened a number of times?and it seems they could end up tangled in the prop.Thank You Brett

Guest wrote:FWIW, my father rode on the 'Fort Henry' as a boy once (Thunder Bay to Toronto) and remarked that crossing the deck was nerve-wracking because the fence rail was made of posts bolted into holders on the deck and that the posts 'wobbled' significantly as he tried to hold on to it.

If water can bend steel visors, blow out windows and tear deck cranes off of rails it can certainly knock down a number of steel pipe posts that were never intended to take heavy loads in the first place

One thing to remember, those railings have very low resistance against wind and water.

FWIW, my father rode on the 'Fort Henry' as a boy once (Thunder Bay to Toronto) and remarked that crossing the deck was nerve-wracking because the fence rail was made of posts bolted into holders on the deck and that the posts 'wobbled' significantly as he tried to hold on to it.

If water can bend steel visors, blow out windows and tear deck cranes off of rails it can certainly knock down a number of steel pipe posts that were never intended to take heavy loads in the first place

Some one asked asked earlier what direction the bow is facing relative to the course they were steering. The Fitzgerald was on a course of 141 degrees and the bow on the bottom is 125 degrees, a difference of 16 degrees.
The stern is at 255 degrees. This is all according to the US Coast Guard drawings.

I agree that the evidence of taconite covering the bow section is razor thin evidence of the stern floating for a time. If the stern did remain on the surface for any appreciable time, I imagine it would have been found further away. If for some reason it did, then it must have been inverted as it would be expected that some of the crew would have been able to make a desperate effort to leave the ship, in the short time given to them. I just did a simple estimate on apporximately what angle the Fitzgerald would have had to dive to allow part of the stern remain above water when the bow hit bottom. Using paper cut outs, bear in mind that this was no scientific study (Added to the fact its been 30 years since my last class in geometry). By using the basic scaled cut out of the Fitzgerald against a backdrop scaled to the water depth. I calculated that the Fitzgerald would have had to dive at an angle of around 50 degrees, or gretaer, in relation to the level of the lake to have the bow hit bottom first and have any portion of the stern at the level of water. This angle becomes greater when you conisder the additional 20 feet of mud the bow section is resting in. The greater the angle, the larger portion of the stern would have been above water, which I imagine at some point would fail as it was no longer supported by the water. At angles less than approximately 45 degrees the entire ship can be underwater prior to bottoming out. Bear in mind that these estimates are very unscientific and use basic parameters with no allowance for wave heights, bottom contours, etc.. I remember seeing some footage of many of the Fitzgerald's navigational antennas atop the pilot house being bent backwards, the angles at which they are wrenched out of shape may provide some clue to the actual angle the ship nose-dived. The bottom line is that any theory about the wreck is about as plausible as any other. After originally accepting the shoaling theory for many years, I have slowly gravitated away from it, and have opened my mind up to other possibilities.

BigB wrote:I know that the theory of her nose-diving with the screw driving her under is popular, and is shown in TV documentaries - and I used to be a proponent - it cannot account for the bow being covered in taconite..

I disagree with this statement. The bow plunges under and hits the bottom, the stern still being at or near the surface. The mid section breaks apart at this point and the stern section sinks, turning upside down on the way down. The ore from the mid section had to go somewhere... obviously down and also probably forward and Could account for the ore on deck. Further as the stern sank it would have spilled out ore as well, and also Could have landed on the bow section.

Could stripped hatch clamps been a factor? This did happened in previous maritime sinkings and accidents.

Al-tho I agree that the site should be protected from recreational diving, I also believe that a better and fuller explanation as to the tragedy should have been made and maybe could still be made to prevent a recurrence.

Anyone who has sailed on the Lakes will agree that the Coast Guard explanation of loose clamps is not possible. The worse the weather the more times the deck crew re-tightens clamps. It's just the way things are done on the Great Lakes!

While I fully support the ban on publication/presentation of human remains on all shipwrecks on the Great Lakes, I feel that a complete ban on diving expeditions to the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald sets a dangerous precedent in our freedom to explore the past. I totally sympathize with the families of the crew lost on the ship, and yes, the wreck should be treated as a gravesite. However, using such a benchmark in my mind qualifies any vessel sunk on the lakes with loss of life as such, and could thus qualify to be restricted to exploration. I feel that every wreck should be protected from exploitation and desecration, especially the Fitzgerald as it is the most vulnerable in terms of financial gain. In my opinion, the commercialization of this disaster (as any visitor to Sault Ste. Marie can tell you from the amount of souvenirs available) is distasteful, and I can only wonder what family members must feel when exposed to it. I would hazard to guess that most visitors unacquainted with the history of the Great Lakes believe that the Edmund Fitzgerald was the only ship to ever sink on them. In closing, it has been nearly 40 years since the Fitzgerald sank beneath the waves of Lake Superior, and while I fully support protection for the wreck (an all shipwrecks), a ban on further exploration is not the answer. I ask the following question, if we start down a path of restricting what part of the past can be explored, what will we be leaving behind for future generations?

No two shipwrecks are ever the same. While the Daniel J. Morrell broke on the surface, and the stern was found miles away, the Carl D. Bradley also broke on the surface but both pieces are close together.

The bow nose-diving with the propeller still turning cannot account for the large amount of taconite covering the bow and the starboard side of the bow. Tests revealed it takes taconite 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 minutes to sink to the bottom of a 520 foot water column. That means the bow was there first before the taconite landed on top. The bow did sink very quickly, no doubt about, but the stern also floated for a time due to the buoyancy in the ballast tanks.

I know that the theory of her nose-diving with the screw driving her under is popular, and is shown in TV documentaries - and I used to be a proponent - it cannot account for the bow being covered in taconite.

I hope that you are able to check out the video link I provided. I realize that it's 55 minutes long but the people who did this video are marine engineers who do marine casualty forensics as a profession. If the NTSB was to, say, reopen the investigation into the sinking, undoubtedly these engineers would be involved. One has to look at the wreckage sequence and the events leading up to it with an unbiased view and no preconceived notions of what happened in order to arrive at an answer that fits the evidence.

As for the fact that at 5:30 McSorley was heard to say, "Don't allow anyone on deck!." They did not talk about this at the symposium. They did this investigation with any free time they had and I'm sure they could do even more with a budget and a mandate, say through the NTSB. But the family members would be the only ones now who could push for such an investigation. but they have let it be known that the wreck should be left alone and considered a grave. As the investigators said, there is no smoking gun. And we'll probably never have all the answers we want.

mn brett wrote:Thank You BigB,it feels nice to be heard.
Also it was said from a salty or Canadian Captain. McSorley yelled to one of His Men.(Don't let anyone go on deck!) So there was something on deck that was causing damage,And a Man was willing to risk His life to Help The Ship? Is there any thought to what A Man could have done,or How could a Man remove or correct the problem,seen from the wheel House? TIA

The person that reported McSorley telling everyone to stay off the deck was Captain Cooper from the Arthur M. Anderson. I believe McSorley was telling everyone to stay off the deck so they didn't get washed overboard.

What direction is the Fitzgerald's forward section laying relative to the course they were steaming?

the theory of her breaking on the surface after the 2 hatch-covers collapsed provides the best fit.

As in the past when a vessel broke in two on the surface the still powered rear section kept sailing on her own. The fact that the two ends are so close together and so much of the hull missing, to me, indicates she plowed into the bottom with the screw still turning and just shredded the missing mid-section.

Thank You BigB,it feels nice to be heard.
Also it was said from a salty or Canadian Captain. McSorley yelled to one of His Men.(Don't let anyone go on deck!) So there was something on deck that was causing damage,And a Man was willing to risk His life to Help The Ship? Is there any thought to what A Man could have done,or How could a Man remove or correct the problem,seen from the wheel House? TIA

BigB wrote: Testing reveals that it takes between 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 minutes for taconite to sink to the bottom in 520 feet of water.
Taconite heavily covers the bow section, so the bow had to be on the bottom before the taconite landed on top.

I'm sure this was tested by people in the know, but something weighing 130 pounds per cubic foot doesn't seem like it should take that long to drop 500 feet through the water.

Folks might want to check out the results from the International Marine Forensics Symposium of April 2012 http://www.maritimetv.com/FeaturedConte ... flv#anchor
and click on Forensic Investigation of breakup and sinking of Edmund Fitzgerald video near the bottom of the page.

Theory for damage to the fence railing down is that a large tree trunk was brought aboard by a large wave. Modelling proved that it could not break due to hogging/sagging of hull.
One of the radars has the horns bent downwards.
Testing reveals that it takes between 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 minutes for taconite to sink to the bottom in 520 feet of water.
Taconite heavily covers the bow section, so the bow had to be on the bottom before the taconite landed on top.
Windows across the back of the pilothouse, except for a couple are smashed inwards.
Damage to bow bulwarks is pushed outwards, and the pilothouse shade is bent down, most likely caused by waves breaking over the pilothouse.
Sediment pushed to port-side as bow slid sideways to stop.
No evidence that the Fitzgerald nosedived, like we see on some TV documentaries with the propeller driving it under.
Rudder to port is evidence of compensation to steering due to starboard list.
She broke-up on surface when number 1 and 2 hatch-covers collapsed.
There is no smoking gun that conclusively indicates that this is exactly how she sank, but from the evidence we have; from the Anderson and photos taken of the wreckage, the theory of her breaking on the surface after the 2 hatch-covers collapsed provides the best fit.