Edmund Fitzgerald Sinking - New Information

[Bob]

Amen!

[badger]

i agree, enough is enough give it a rest, live in the present not 50 yra ago

[Jon Paul]

I'm am a bit more than disturbed and disappointed that the ages of 2 fine Captains/Masters Cooper and McSorley would even enter into this conversation. If one would take the actual time to listen to Captain Cooper it leaves no doubt his deliberate thoughtfulness in his responses.
The implication that either would knowingly and willingly risk in such a careless manner their paramount responsibility for the lives under their command is repugnant.
Enough is enough

[FWE]

I’m the Aviation world “Get Home Itis” has been the undoing of many.

[Guest]

At the time of the sinking, Capt. Cooper was 55-years-old and Capt. McSorley was 62, so maybe age was a factor in their decisions, too. I don't know how well both captains knew each other.

I have read somewhere that Capt. McSorley would do welding work during winter layup and was employed by Hans Hansen during those months and apparently Capt. Cooper had a welder's license. How common was/is it for a captain to have a welder's license?

[jerry at duluth]

Hi Captain Metz, you are absolutely correct. If either boat had been out there alone, they would have gone to Thunder Bay for shelter. The flag ship of the Anderson's fleet was up there, why not the Anderson. Egos are a dangerous thing.
Jerry

[Capt R Metz]

I have a hunch about what took place the night of the sinking: two ships following each other. As the weather got worse and the seas got bigger the captain of the Anderson could have thought maybe he should go to anchor in Thunder Bay but the Fitz has not said a word about going to anchor so I will keep on following him. The captain of the Fitz could have been thinking the same thing about going to anchor but the Anderson never said a word so he will keep going. Both captains could have thought about going to anchor and each of the captains could have decided to be the first to say something. I bet if the either captain would have called the other captain and said I am going to find a place to anchor and call it a night, the other captain would have done the same. If either captain had 29 men would have survived. I went to anchor in Thunder Bay that night, and so did many other ships even thousand-footers. I remember saying to the wheelsman, 'It's like a little city out here tonight with all the lights from the ships.

[Jared]

I remember a Twilight Zone episode called 40 fathom grave. The sailor was having a nervous breakdown many years after the loss of his ship and that it was solely on him and the captain has to give him the talk that no one man or circumstance dooms his ship. It's always a multitude of events that culminates to the loss.

I believe there is enough physical evidence that was found or recorded to give an accurate assessment about what happened that night. The CG and NTSB reports from prior shipwreck is usually pretty accurate. But there are exceptions when politics are involved such as the Bradley sinking and US Steel's blatant cover up and denial of the breakup. Considering US Steel was the largest company in America at the time you have force to change facts.

When the ore carrier Derbyshire sank in a typhoon in 1980, the accepted theory was that the problem that plagued the other 3 sister ships in their stern girders was what caused the loss. It wasn't until the wreck was located in the 1990s that it was in fact the ballast tank ventilator covers that led to the loss. The crew didn't even know they were doomed until the bow was 100 feet underwater. I believe that similar circumstances happened to the Fitzgerald. There is no known wreck in the lakes found so far that has an upright bow and turtled stern.

[Guest]

My personal opinion is that something was going on earlier in the day, because the Edmund Fitzgerald, being a National Weather Service Cooperating Vessel was a weather ship and would send synoptic weather reports to the NWS at designated times (00, 06, 12, 18 Zulu). She had sent her 12 Zulu weather report at 7am, but not the afternoon, 1pm (18 Zulu) weather report.

The Anderson was also a NWS cooperating weather ship and sent in her 1pm and 7pm weather report (BTW, she reported winds from the WNW at 50 knots and waves 16 feet at 7pm. The John Dykstra at 1pm reported winds of 60 knots, gusting to 75 knots, waves 15-ft. She was in northern Lake Huron at the time.

The sad thing I'm seeing with the Edmund Fitzgerald is how polarizing it has become. Instead of listening and reading what the other person has said/wrote, some take it as an attack on their own personal belief. It's why we can't have a calm discussion of the different theories.

Remember, those who know definitively know what happened, died on November 10, 1975.

[Guest]

I wonder if the Caribou Island grounding theory would have ever come about had Captain Cooper never mentioned his opinion that the Fitzgerald was closer than he would want to be?

[up north george]

As you stated you are no expert. I would say Captain Cooper with advanced Radar training as all Captains with an unlimited license are experts. They use experienced Maters as expert witnesses all the time. Also with years of experience. His and his Mates at that time also experienced and trained individuals would be able to make a pretty accurate assessment. Radar is used all the time to take fixes and give accurate positions.

Really? This and several other examples beg to differ.

cedarville_photo_bw.jpg

I want to read about other accounts from the bridge crew that night. And quite frankly I think the Coast Guard and the NTSB has far more experience in piecing together with accuracy about what happened that day than a crew 15 miles away. Other people who are not emotionally invested in the sinking can take a far more nuanced view to the events that transpired. Whatever did occur that day falls squarely on Captain McSorely's shoulders.

Well said! It is amazing how closed minded some people get when this subject comes up. Growing up during the 1970s I recall a pair of family acquaintances that both had a deep interest in Great Lakes shipping that found themselves on opposites sides of the argument as to whether the Coast Guard findings were right or wrong. These two had been friends for years but became so embittered that they would not talk to one another for the balance of their lives.

The USCG had good reason to find cause beyond themselves having any blame. Whitefish point light and RDF, which at the time was used. Were both out because their backup generator did not work. The Fitz may have been able to help get a fix of their own if the RDF was working. Also the NTSB isn't always correct on everything. It's always amazing how those "desk' engineers are always correct, but the ones actually working in the field, crews are always at fault. If that were true there would never be a recall of anything built. It's moot point at this juncture and should be left to rest.

[up north George]

As you stated you are no expert. I would say Captain Cooper with advanced Radar training as all Captains with an unlimited license are experts. They use experienced Maters as expert witnesses all the time. Also with years of experience. His and his Mates at that time also experienced and trained individuals would be able to make a pretty accurate assessment. Radar is used all the time to take fixes and give accurate positions.

Really? This and several other examples beg to differ.

cedarville_photo_bw.jpg

I want to read about other accounts from the bridge crew that night. And quite frankly I think the Coast Guard and the NTSB has far more experience in piecing together with accuracy about what happened that day than a crew 15 miles away. Other people who are not emotionally invested in the sinking can take a far more nuanced view to the events that transpired. Whatever did occur that day falls squarely on Captain McSorely's shoulders.

Well said! It is amazing how closed minded some people get when this subject comes up. Growing up during the 1970s I recall a pair of family acquaintances that both had a deep interest in Great Lakes shipping that found themselves on opposites sides of the argument as to whether the Coast Guard findings were right or wrong. These two had been friends for years but became so embittered that they would not talk to one another for the balance of their lives.

The USCG had good reason to find cause beyond themselves having any blame. Whitefish point light and RDF, which at the time was used. Were both out because their backup generator did not work. The Fitz may have been able to help get a fix of their own if the RDF was working. Also the NTSB isn't always correct on everything. It's always amazing how those "desk' engineers are always correct, but the ones actually working in the field, crews are always at fault. If that were true there would never be a recall of anything built. It's moot point at this juncture and should be left to rest.

[Guest]

As you stated you are no expert. I would say Captain Cooper with advanced Radar training as all Captains with an unlimited license are experts. They use experienced Maters as expert witnesses all the time. Also with years of experience. His and his Mates at that time also experienced and trained individuals would be able to make a pretty accurate assessment. Radar is used all the time to take fixes and give accurate positions.

Really? This and several other examples beg to differ.

cedarville_photo_bw.jpg

I want to read about other accounts from the bridge crew that night. And quite frankly I think the Coast Guard and the NTSB has far more experience in piecing together with accuracy about what happened that day than a crew 15 miles away. Other people who are not emotionally invested in the sinking can take a far more nuanced view to the events that transpired. Whatever did occur that day falls squarely on Captain McSorely's shoulders.

Well said! It is amazing how closed minded some people get when this subject comes up. Growing up during the 1970s I recall a pair of family acquaintances that both had a deep interest in Great Lakes shipping that found themselves on opposites sides of the argument as to whether the Coast Guard findings were right or wrong. These two had been friends for years but became so embittered that they would not talk to one another for the balance of their lives.

[Guest]

I too have always been a firm believer that she struck the shoal in or near Caribou Island. Aside from all the reports of her possibly striking the shoal area, I think the closest thing we have at that time is from Anderson’s skipper Bernie Cooper. As we all know, he and the crew of the Anderson followed the Fitz and had them on radar after they lost visual contact in the snow. It was about 2:30 to 2:45 in the afternoon on November 10 that they lost site of the Fitz. At that point they were both near Caribou Island. Cooper said in an interview that it was about 3:10 p.m. on the 10th give or take that the Fitz reported their first signs of trouble to the Anderson. I guess what I’m trying to say is Cooper was there and saw the Fitz on radar closer to Caribou then he wanted his own ship the Anderson to be plus he tried to bypass the shoal area as to not come in too close to it. Finally, I also believe at the end that the large rogue waves eventually caught up to the Fitz thus driving her to the end and then sinking. That’s just my thoughts and theory on this!

For all practical purposes, Captain Cooper was not "there" but several miles away observing the Fitzgerald on radar. Yes, he and the crew of the Anderson were the closest witnesses to the Fitzgerald but they were not even close enough to visually observe the Fitzgerald during the time in question. My primary question about Cooper's claim about the Fitzgerald being too close to Caribou Island concerns the capabilities of the Anderson's radar set in providing accurate data in those sea conditions to make such a determination. It is likely this radar system was configured to provide navigational data with the Anderson as its focal point. Based on this, what was its ability to accurately plot the distance between one moving return (Fitzgerald) and one stationary return (Caribou Island) from the Anderson's position that was also in motion? Without a recorded history of these tracks, I don't see how a detailed assessment can be made other than relying on what boils down to be Cooper's educated opinion of what he observed. I'm no radar expert but even from a basic standpoint, it seems reasonable to believe the radar sets in use aboard the Anderson in 1975 were optimized to measure the distance and bearings of returns in relation to the Anderson and not to accurately measure the distances and bearings of these returns between each other. Furthermore, it also seems that the weather conditions would also play a role in preventing an accurate assessment of the actual distance between the Fitzgerald and Caribou Island during its closest passage especially from observations without the benefit of an accurate reconstruction of data.

I'm not trying to downplay or take away from Captain Cooper's assertions as he was a highly experienced mariner and he may in fact be totally correct in this belief. However, it must be said that to rely entirely upon this evidence alone also means that it must also be accepted that Captain McSorely, with his several decades of experience, somehow allowed his ship to be put into danger by passing too close to Caribou Island. Although a definite possibility, I find that somewhat difficult to believe as it seems to be the maritime equivalent of using "pilot error" to explain mysterious airplane crashes. It is interesting, however, that it seemed that Fitzgerald's troubles really began after passing through this area. Unfortunately, the only people that were actually "there" are also the ones that were lost with the Fitzgerald.

As you stated you are no expert. I would say Captain Cooper with advanced Radar training as all Captains with an unlimited license are experts. They use experienced Maters as expert witnesses all the time. Also with years of experience. His and his Mates at that time also experienced and trained individuals would be able to make a pretty accurate assessment. Radar is used all the time to take fixes and give accurate positions.

I'm not questioning the abilities of the crew but rather the then current (1975) capabilities of these radars. Does anyone know the type and age of the Anderson's radar set(s) at the time in question?

[Guest]

I too have always been a firm believer that she struck the shoal in or near Caribou Island. Aside from all the reports of her possibly striking the shoal area, I think the closest thing we have at that time is from Anderson’s skipper Bernie Cooper. As we all know, he and the crew of the Anderson followed the Fitz and had them on radar after they lost visual contact in the snow. It was about 2:30 to 2:45 in the afternoon on November 10 that they lost site of the Fitz. At that point they were both near Caribou Island. Cooper said in an interview that it was about 3:10 p.m. on the 10th give or take that the Fitz reported their first signs of trouble to the Anderson. I guess what I’m trying to say is Cooper was there and saw the Fitz on radar closer to Caribou then he wanted his own ship the Anderson to be plus he tried to bypass the shoal area as to not come in too close to it. Finally, I also believe at the end that the large rogue waves eventually caught up to the Fitz thus driving her to the end and then sinking. That’s just my thoughts and theory on this!

For all practical purposes, Captain Cooper was not "there" but several miles away observing the Fitzgerald on radar. Yes, he and the crew of the Anderson were the closest witnesses to the Fitzgerald but they were not even close enough to visually observe the Fitzgerald during the time in question. My primary question about Cooper's claim about the Fitzgerald being too close to Caribou Island concerns the capabilities of the Anderson's radar set in providing accurate data in those sea conditions to make such a determination. It is likely this radar system was configured to provide navigational data with the Anderson as its focal point. Based on this, what was its ability to accurately plot the distance between one moving return (Fitzgerald) and one stationary return (Caribou Island) from the Anderson's position that was also in motion? Without a recorded history of these tracks, I don't see how a detailed assessment can be made other than relying on what boils down to be Cooper's educated opinion of what he observed. I'm no radar expert but even from a basic standpoint, it seems reasonable to believe the radar sets in use aboard the Anderson in 1975 were optimized to measure the distance and bearings of returns in relation to the Anderson and not to accurately measure the distances and bearings of these returns between each other. Furthermore, it also seems that the weather conditions would also play a role in preventing an accurate assessment of the actual distance between the Fitzgerald and Caribou Island during its closest passage especially from observations without the benefit of an accurate reconstruction of data.

I'm not trying to downplay or take away from Captain Cooper's assertions as he was a highly experienced mariner and he may in fact be totally correct in this belief. However, it must be said that to rely entirely upon this evidence alone also means that it must also be accepted that Captain McSorely, with his several decades of experience, somehow allowed his ship to be put into danger by passing too close to Caribou Island. Although a definite possibility, I find that somewhat difficult to believe as it seems to be the maritime equivalent of using "pilot error" to explain mysterious airplane crashes. It is interesting, however, that it seemed that Fitzgerald's troubles really began after passing through this area. Unfortunately, the only people that were actually "there" are also the ones that were lost with the Fitzgerald.

Give me two seperate radar fixes on the same object at two different times and I can tell you her course and speed and relation to fixed objects/points of land using just a radar plotting sheet, a dividers, a triangle, and a pencil. Any navigator could, it's basic radar 101. Even a cadet can do it from a moving ship.

[Jared]

As you stated you are no expert. I would say Captain Cooper with advanced Radar training as all Captains with an unlimited license are experts. They use experienced Maters as expert witnesses all the time. Also with years of experience. His and his Mates at that time also experienced and trained individuals would be able to make a pretty accurate assessment. Radar is used all the time to take fixes and give accurate positions.

Really? This and several other examples beg to differ.

cedarville_photo_bw.jpg (44.22 KiB) Viewed 7538 times

I want to read about other accounts from the bridge crew that night. And quite frankly I think the Coast Guard and the NTSB has far more experience in piecing together with accuracy about what happened that day than a crew 15 miles away. Other people who are not emotionally invested in the sinking can take a far more nuanced view to the events that transpired. Whatever did occur that day falls squarely on Captain McSorely's shoulders.

[up north George]

I too have always been a firm believer that she struck the shoal in or near Caribou Island. Aside from all the reports of her possibly striking the shoal area, I think the closest thing we have at that time is from Anderson’s skipper Bernie Cooper. As we all know, he and the crew of the Anderson followed the Fitz and had them on radar after they lost visual contact in the snow. It was about 2:30 to 2:45 in the afternoon on November 10 that they lost site of the Fitz. At that point they were both near Caribou Island. Cooper said in an interview that it was about 3:10 p.m. on the 10th give or take that the Fitz reported their first signs of trouble to the Anderson. I guess what I’m trying to say is Cooper was there and saw the Fitz on radar closer to Caribou then he wanted his own ship the Anderson to be plus he tried to bypass the shoal area as to not come in too close to it. Finally, I also believe at the end that the large rogue waves eventually caught up to the Fitz thus driving her to the end and then sinking. That’s just my thoughts and theory on this!

For all practical purposes, Captain Cooper was not "there" but several miles away observing the Fitzgerald on radar. Yes, he and the crew of the Anderson were the closest witnesses to the Fitzgerald but they were not even close enough to visually observe the Fitzgerald during the time in question. My primary question about Cooper's claim about the Fitzgerald being too close to Caribou Island concerns the capabilities of the Anderson's radar set in providing accurate data in those sea conditions to make such a determination. It is likely this radar system was configured to provide navigational data with the Anderson as its focal point. Based on this, what was its ability to accurately plot the distance between one moving return (Fitzgerald) and one stationary return (Caribou Island) from the Anderson's position that was also in motion? Without a recorded history of these tracks, I don't see how a detailed assessment can be made other than relying on what boils down to be Cooper's educated opinion of what he observed. I'm no radar expert but even from a basic standpoint, it seems reasonable to believe the radar sets in use aboard the Anderson in 1975 were optimized to measure the distance and bearings of returns in relation to the Anderson and not to accurately measure the distances and bearings of these returns between each other. Furthermore, it also seems that the weather conditions would also play a role in preventing an accurate assessment of the actual distance between the Fitzgerald and Caribou Island during its closest passage especially from observations without the benefit of an accurate reconstruction of data.

I'm not trying to downplay or take away from Captain Cooper's assertions as he was a highly experienced mariner and he may in fact be totally correct in this belief. However, it must be said that to rely entirely upon this evidence alone also means that it must also be accepted that Captain McSorely, with his several decades of experience, somehow allowed his ship to be put into danger by passing too close to Caribou Island. Although a definite possibility, I find that somewhat difficult to believe as it seems to be the maritime equivalent of using "pilot error" to explain mysterious airplane crashes. It is interesting, however, that it seemed that Fitzgerald's troubles really began after passing through this area. Unfortunately, the only people that were actually "there" are also the ones that were lost with the Fitzgerald.

As you stated you are no expert. I would say Captain Cooper with advanced Radar training as all Captains with an unlimited license are experts. They use experienced Maters as expert witnesses all the time. Also with years of experience. His and his Mates at that time also experienced and trained individuals would be able to make a pretty accurate assessment. Radar is used all the time to take fixes and give accurate positions.

[FWE]

Here is the FITZs last morning message sent to the company via WMI Lorain Nov 10 0720 est:

FITZGERALD Superior Piers 0742/9 Dock 0625 Start to load 0840 Departure 1420/9 Superior Piers 1452 Manitou Island 0530/10 Eta Soo Indefinate Weather Cargo 2616 Require FM Radio Svc.

[Guest]

I too have always been a firm believer that she struck the shoal in or near Caribou Island. Aside from all the reports of her possibly striking the shoal area, I think the closest thing we have at that time is from Anderson’s skipper Bernie Cooper. As we all know, he and the crew of the Anderson followed the Fitz and had them on radar after they lost visual contact in the snow. It was about 2:30 to 2:45 in the afternoon on November 10 that they lost site of the Fitz. At that point they were both near Caribou Island. Cooper said in an interview that it was about 3:10 p.m. on the 10th give or take that the Fitz reported their first signs of trouble to the Anderson. I guess what I’m trying to say is Cooper was there and saw the Fitz on radar closer to Caribou then he wanted his own ship the Anderson to be plus he tried to bypass the shoal area as to not come in too close to it. Finally, I also believe at the end that the large rogue waves eventually caught up to the Fitz thus driving her to the end and then sinking. That’s just my thoughts and theory on this!

For all practical purposes, Captain Cooper was not "there" but several miles away observing the Fitzgerald on radar. Yes, he and the crew of the Anderson were the closest witnesses to the Fitzgerald but they were not even close enough to visually observe the Fitzgerald during the time in question. My primary question about Cooper's claim about the Fitzgerald being too close to Caribou Island concerns the capabilities of the Anderson's radar set in providing accurate data in those sea conditions to make such a determination. It is likely this radar system was configured to provide navigational data with the Anderson as its focal point. Based on this, what was its ability to accurately plot the distance between one moving return (Fitzgerald) and one stationary return (Caribou Island) from the Anderson's position that was also in motion? Without a recorded history of these tracks, I don't see how a detailed assessment can be made other than relying on what boils down to be Cooper's educated opinion of what he observed. I'm no radar expert but even from a basic standpoint, it seems reasonable to believe the radar sets in use aboard the Anderson in 1975 were optimized to measure the distance and bearings of returns in relation to the Anderson and not to accurately measure the distances and bearings of these returns between each other. Furthermore, it also seems that the weather conditions would also play a role in preventing an accurate assessment of the actual distance between the Fitzgerald and Caribou Island during its closest passage especially from observations without the benefit of an accurate reconstruction of data.

I'm not trying to downplay or take away from Captain Cooper's assertions as he was a highly experienced mariner and he may in fact be totally correct in this belief. However, it must be said that to rely entirely upon this evidence alone also means that it must also be accepted that Captain McSorely, with his several decades of experience, somehow allowed his ship to be put into danger by passing too close to Caribou Island. Although a definite possibility, I find that somewhat difficult to believe as it seems to be the maritime equivalent of using "pilot error" to explain mysterious airplane crashes. It is interesting, however, that it seemed that Fitzgerald's troubles really began after passing through this area. Unfortunately, the only people that were actually "there" are also the ones that were lost with the Fitzgerald.

[Guest]

Why didn’t either or both of these ships take shelter in Thunder Bay instead of trying to make whitefish bay?

I haven't read much about the Bradley sinking, but I recently read from the Coast Guard report, that other than the Cristian Sartori, all other boats in northern Lake Michigan at the time had taken shelter and at least 8 had anchored in Green Bay, Garden Island, or the Straits.