Cargo Hatch Clamp Discipline

[Houseflag]

Haven't posted on this for many years - thought I would try it again.

During Summer Sailing and great weather, it was customary to simply put on the Corners and the three or four clamps at the centers. If you were around with the old telescopic hatches - you would do 'every-other' clamp. Those hatch leafs could slide so you didn't dare leave them unclamped all the way. You had fun in the fall and winter with Tarps, battons and strongbacks.

Fall, Winter and Spring - you are putting them all on.

[garbear]

Not hard to believe. Was on the Clarke that night. 3-4 hours ahead. I was 23 at the time.[/quote]

I'd like to hear what you remember about that night. Perhaps you have told it here before but I have not heard the story.

Care to retell it?[/quote]

Been a few yrs. since I posted my memories of that night. Won't be soon, but if I can remember I will.

[Guest]

Dang it, I'm tired of hearing about hatch clamps and covers regarding the Fitz's sinking. Cooper said McSorley told him early on that he was taking in water from below so as far as I'm concerned there was a hull fracture below the waterline. Period. The impacts the two sections of the broken ship took after hitting bottom would have knocked the covers and clamps askew to the point of being worthless as investigative theories as to the cause of her sinking. With the Caribou Island light out I still lean toward hitting bottom sometime during the storm.
The CG did try to shift blame and only ended up with egg on their face, covering up for that light being out and for the retired CG admirals that supposedly sat on Northwestern Mutual's board.

Given the sudden change in atmospheres when the ship went under, I would be surprised if many of the hatches were not blown off by the sudden change in air pressure from inside the cargo hold. That would be a massive amount of pressure pushing up from below that likely tore off many of the hatches with others being dislodged by the spillage of cargo. I doubt very highly that the Fitzgerald hit the bottom at a 90 degree angle that would have left 200 feet of its stern above the water so it more than likely went down at a shallower angle driven by its momentum and its still operating screw. It seems possible that air pressure would have played some part in some of the hatches blowing off in the few seconds it took for the ship to bottom out and break apart. As the hatch covers are designed to keep the cargo hold watertight, how would they react by being subjected to forces attempting to escape the cargo hold? Could this be why many clamps were found undamaged? In the end, however, there can be definitive answer to this sinking but as with any mystery it should be viewed with an open mind. Hard to believe this happened nearly 50 years ago.

I sure wish people would let this crew Rest In Peace. Three weeks before she sunk I was offered a job on board. My new wife was at work and had our car. I was unable to get to the dock before she sailed. I also had a classmate on board. All above is true as to what happened to her. Steamboat.

[RCRVRP]

[/quote] Not hard to believe. Was on the Clarke that night. 3-4 hours ahead. I was 23 at the time.[/quote]

I'd like to hear what you remember about that night. Perhaps you have told it here before but I have not heard the story.

Care to retell it?

[garbear]

Dang it, I'm tired of hearing about hatch clamps and covers regarding the Fitz's sinking. Cooper said McSorley told him early on that he was taking in water from below so as far as I'm concerned there was a hull fracture below the waterline. Period. The impacts the two sections of the broken ship took after hitting bottom would have knocked the covers and clamps askew to the point of being worthless as investigative theories as to the cause of her sinking. With the Caribou Island light out I still lean toward hitting bottom sometime during the storm.
The CG did try to shift blame and only ended up with egg on their face, covering up for that light being out and for the retired CG admirals that supposedly sat on Northwestern Mutual's board.

Given the sudden change in atmospheres when the ship went under, I would be surprised if many of the hatches were not blown off by the sudden change in air pressure from inside the cargo hold. That would be a massive amount of pressure pushing up from below that likely tore off many of the hatches with others being dislodged by the spillage of cargo. I doubt very highly that the Fitzgerald hit the bottom at a 90 degree angle that would have left 200 feet of its stern above the water so it more than likely went down at a shallower angle driven by its momentum and its still operating screw. It seems possible that air pressure would have played some part in some of the hatches blowing off in the few seconds it took for the ship to bottom out and break apart. As the hatch covers are designed to keep the cargo hold watertight, how would they react by being subjected to forces attempting to escape the cargo hold? Could this be why many clamps were found undamaged? In the end, however, there can be definitive answer to this sinking but as with any mystery it should be viewed with an open mind. Hard to believe this happened nearly 50 years ago.

Not hard to believe. Was on the Clarke that night. 3-4 hours ahead. I was 23 at the time.

[Guest]

Dang it, I'm tired of hearing about hatch clamps and covers regarding the Fitz's sinking. Cooper said McSorley told him early on that he was taking in water from below so as far as I'm concerned there was a hull fracture below the waterline. Period. The impacts the two sections of the broken ship took after hitting bottom would have knocked the covers and clamps askew to the point of being worthless as investigative theories as to the cause of her sinking. With the Caribou Island light out I still lean toward hitting bottom sometime during the storm.
The CG did try to shift blame and only ended up with egg on their face, covering up for that light being out and for the retired CG admirals that supposedly sat on Northwestern Mutual's board.

Given the sudden change in atmospheres when the ship went under, I would be surprised if many of the hatches were not blown off by the sudden change in air pressure from inside the cargo hold. That would be a massive amount of pressure pushing up from below that likely tore off many of the hatches with others being dislodged by the spillage of cargo. I doubt very highly that the Fitzgerald hit the bottom at a 90 degree angle that would have left 200 feet of its stern above the water so it more than likely went down at a shallower angle driven by its momentum and its still operating screw. It seems possible that air pressure would have played some part in some of the hatches blowing off in the few seconds it took for the ship to bottom out and break apart. As the hatch covers are designed to keep the cargo hold watertight, how would they react by being subjected to forces attempting to escape the cargo hold? Could this be why many clamps were found undamaged? In the end, however, there can be definitive answer to this sinking but as with any mystery it should be viewed with an open mind. Hard to believe this happened nearly 50 years ago.

[Wheelsman]

Dang it, I'm tired of hearing about hatch clamps and covers regarding the Fitz's sinking. Cooper said McSorley told him early on that he was taking in water from below so as far as I'm concerned there was a hull fracture below the waterline. Period. The impacts the two sections of the broken ship took after hitting bottom would have knocked the covers and clamps askew to the point of being worthless as investigative theories as to the cause of her sinking. With the Caribou Island light out I still lean toward hitting bottom sometime during the storm.
The CG did try to shift blame and only ended up with egg on their face, covering up for that light being out and for the retired CG admirals that supposedly sat on Northwestern Mutual's board.

[gjhunter01]

Hence the saying "There's a storm brewing, batten down the hatches"

[MarcE]

20 years ago Oglebay had a policy that every hatch clamp secured after September 1st. During summer months, maybe a third.

[Jon Paul]

On the boats I was on hatch clamps were only secured on the ends and very middle of the hatch cover when the boat was without cargo and in ballast during the good weather months.
The photos of the Block were apparently taken under those conditions.

[garbear]

Reading about the removal of cargo hatches while underway in another thread got me thinking about how rigorous were the regulations/practices of securing hatch clamps back in the 1900s? I have attached two images taken from the MHSD John Meyer Photo Gallery of the L. E. Block in 1970 with most of its hatch clamps unsecured while transiting the Soo Locks. I know that sometimes in the rivers the hatches would be removed for painting etc. but the second image shows the Block obviously underway on the lake also with most of it clamps unsecured. Were there any regulations about the clamps? Although disputed by many, I'm still unconvinced that ineffective hatch closures did not have something to do with the Edmund Fitzgerald sinking. That may not make me a popular guy but I could see this as being at least a contributing factor if not the actual cause.

The Block was light in both photos so you would run with less clamps. On the Clarke when light we usually ran with every other clamp on. Once in a great while we went with the set-up the Block had. I've stated before that come the end of October we ran with all clamps on light and loaded. With the conditions the Fitzgerald experienced there is no way they sailed without all the clamps on.

[Guest]

Reading about the removal of cargo hatches while underway in another thread got me thinking about how rigorous were the regulations/practices of securing hatch clamps back in the 1900s? I have attached two images taken from the MHSD John Meyer Photo Gallery of the L. E. Block in 1970 with most of its hatch clamps unsecured while transiting the Soo Locks. I know that sometimes in the rivers the hatches would be removed for painting etc. but the second image shows the Block obviously underway on the lake also with most of it clamps unsecured. Were there any regulations about the clamps? Although disputed by many, I'm still unconvinced that ineffective hatch closures did not have something to do with the Edmund Fitzgerald sinking. That may not make me a popular guy but I could see this as being at least a contributing factor if not the actual cause.