Fitz Question

Post a reply

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

If you wish to attach one or more files enter the details below.

Maximum filesize per attachment: 3 MiB.

Expand view Topic review: Fitz Question

Re: Fitz Question

by Guest » February 1, 2023, 8:27 pm

How close was the Fitz to the shoal area?

Re: Fitz Question

by Jared » January 29, 2023, 8:32 pm

Scott wrote: ↑January 29, 2023, 11:13 am
Jared wrote: ↑January 28, 2023, 3:21 am
Guest wrote: ↑January 26, 2023, 3:40 pm Realizing it is a mute point, I am curious as to knowing if 1 or 2 ballast tanks on the Fitzgerald were breached, could the water somehow find it's way into the cargo hold? I always thought ballast tanks were separate and basically watertight. The list the Fitzgerald reported is very possibly related to taking on water through breaching of ballast tanks. I've never bought the ineffective hatch closure theory by the NTSB/Coast Guard.
Of course, if a stress fracture occurred, then it's basically a mortal wound.
We don't know if the tanks were breached or not. There are 8 ballast tanks per side of the vessel. 2 vents for 2 ballast tanks on the sides and and 3 single vents for the walkway tunnel underneath the deck per side.

Please keep the questions technical, factual, and to the point as the mods dread these threads dealing with the Fitzgerald as arguments become quite intensive and emotional for some.

Simplified-General-Arrangement-Sketch-of-the-Edmund-Fitzgerald_Q640.jpg
Don't know if the ballast tanks were breached? Looks like someone isn't buying into the entire list of the Fitzgerald theory. How else would that amount of lake water (enough to cause a list) get into the holds? Faulty hatch clamping? Not! To me, it's obvious that there was a hull breach after the Fitz passed near or over six fathom shoal. It was after this point that McSorely called in his list and fence rails down. I guess the hatch clamps gave out at that point? The Fitz was also running to Whitefish with 2 ballast pumps working to pump out the water pouring into her. That was unsuccessful. We can speculate all we like about the demise of the Fitz, but at least make it believable.
The only thing I know and believe is that she filled up with water. You can look at my prior posts on what I speculate.

Re: Fitz Question

by Guest » January 29, 2023, 1:24 pm

After all these years and what we do know about the Fitzgerald sinking, I can see why the boat sank. The perfect storm. Too many things were stacked against her. Running with a reduced freeboard, taking on water, and 25+ foot seas, the vessel simply could not stay buoyant any longer. The weight of green water on deck caused hatch covers to fail and sudden and catastrophic flooding of the cargo hold sent her to the bottom. A truly fascinating and compelling saga.

Re: Fitz Question

by Guest » January 29, 2023, 12:59 pm

The captain of the Edmund Fitzgerald when asked if he had his pumps on, he said both of them. So the water was coming into the ship from somewhere - it could have been a stress fracture or damage from passing/touching the shoal. He was pumping water but by the time he talked to one of the saltwater vessels, he reported it as a "bad list". That seems to imply that the water was coming in faster than it could be pumped, and that may mean it was getting into the cargohold, but we don't know.

We can never confirm what happened one way or the other. And everytime the Fitzgerald wreckage is explored, you have more questions than answers.

Re: Fitz Question

by Scott » January 29, 2023, 11:13 am

Jared wrote: ↑January 28, 2023, 3:21 am
Guest wrote: ↑January 26, 2023, 3:40 pm Realizing it is a mute point, I am curious as to knowing if 1 or 2 ballast tanks on the Fitzgerald were breached, could the water somehow find it's way into the cargo hold? I always thought ballast tanks were separate and basically watertight. The list the Fitzgerald reported is very possibly related to taking on water through breaching of ballast tanks. I've never bought the ineffective hatch closure theory by the NTSB/Coast Guard.
Of course, if a stress fracture occurred, then it's basically a mortal wound.
We don't know if the tanks were breached or not. There are 8 ballast tanks per side of the vessel. 2 vents for 2 ballast tanks on the sides and and 3 single vents for the walkway tunnel underneath the deck per side.

Please keep the questions technical, factual, and to the point as the mods dread these threads dealing with the Fitzgerald as arguments become quite intensive and emotional for some.

Simplified-General-Arrangement-Sketch-of-the-Edmund-Fitzgerald_Q640.jpg
Don't know if the ballast tanks were breached? Looks like someone isn't buying into the entire list of the Fitzgerald theory. How else would that amount of lake water (enough to cause a list) get into the holds? Faulty hatch clamping? Not! To me, it's obvious that there was a hull breach after the Fitz passed near or over six fathom shoal. It was after this point that McSorely called in his list and fence rails down. I guess the hatch clamps gave out at that point? The Fitz was also running to Whitefish with 2 ballast pumps working to pump out the water pouring into her. That was unsuccessful. We can speculate all we like about the demise of the Fitz, but at least make it believable.

Re: Fitz Question

by hayhugh » January 28, 2023, 4:34 pm

When asked by the captain of the Anderson He replied that he had two ballast pumps working. He was not pumping the cargo hold

Re: Fitz Question

by Jared » January 28, 2023, 3:21 am

Guest wrote: ↑January 26, 2023, 3:40 pm Realizing it is a mute point, I am curious as to knowing if 1 or 2 ballast tanks on the Fitzgerald were breached, could the water somehow find it's way into the cargo hold? I always thought ballast tanks were separate and basically watertight. The list the Fitzgerald reported is very possibly related to taking on water through breaching of ballast tanks. I've never bought the ineffective hatch closure theory by the NTSB/Coast Guard.
Of course, if a stress fracture occurred, then it's basically a mortal wound.
We don't know if the tanks were breached or not. There are 8 ballast tanks per side of the vessel. 2 vents for 2 ballast tanks on the sides and and 3 single vents for the walkway tunnel underneath the deck per side.

Please keep the questions technical, factual, and to the point as the mods dread these threads dealing with the Fitzgerald as arguments become quite intensive and emotional for some.
Simplified-General-Arrangement-Sketch-of-the-Edmund-Fitzgerald_Q640.jpg

Fitz Question

by Guest » January 26, 2023, 3:40 pm

Realizing it is a mute point, I am curious as to knowing if 1 or 2 ballast tanks on the Fitzgerald were breached, could the water somehow find it's way into the cargo hold? I always thought ballast tanks were separate and basically watertight. The list the Fitzgerald reported is very possibly related to taking on water through breaching of ballast tanks. I've never bought the ineffective hatch closure theory by the NTSB/Coast Guard.
Of course, if a stress fracture occurred, then it's basically a mortal wound.

Top