Fitzgerald Wreckage Question

[mn brett]

I appreciate The sailors who have worked these Boats,and the fact You put up with Us land lovers asking questions We have know experience in knowing without asking. I am just speculating When McSorley said (His fence rail is down and some vent covers are missing)Could this have been from an object washing on to the deck doing enough damage to flood and sink the ship?

[MN Boater]

I recall one point this individual made concerning Captain McSorely saying something the effect "as long as this thing holds together for another year, after that I don't care what happens to it." While such a statement may have been made, its context may be misplaced as McSorely was probably frustrated when he said it. Few of us can say, without guilt, that we have never said something when frustrated that could be misconstrued.

I agree. Captain McSorely might have been on a voyage that had problems, like conveyor motor not working correctly, then a light in his cabin burned out and they broke a mooring line, and he was tired and in a foul mood. You can say things in that state of mind you wish you could take back the next day. One day the boat is a pile of s*it, the next day she's the best vessel on the lakes!

[Guest]

One of the facets of the Fitzgerald story I have never put stock into was the evidence supplied by a cook/shipkeeper (I cannot think of his name of hand) that has been used by many authors/speakers to support the idea that the Edmund Fitzgerald had many structural defects including a loose keel. First off, I question the credibility of such a witness that apparently possesses no engineering background. I do, however, submit that given his job position he may have been in tune to much that went onboard the ship (sort of like "word on the street") and therefore could provide some insight into possible issues. I guess my main question would be that if he felt the ship was so dangerous why did he continue to sail onboard the ship for a number of seasons before leaving the ship with an illness in 1975?
I recall one point this individual made concerning Captain McSorely saying something the effect "as long as this thing holds together for another year, after that I don't care what happens to it." While such a statement may have been made, its context may be misplaced as McSorely was probably frustrated when he said it. Few of us can say, without guilt, that we have never said something when frustrated that could be misconstrued. Furthermore, if the Fitzgerald had such obvious defects, then, at the minimum, the owners, Coast Guard, and American Bureau of Shipping would all have to be highly negligent in allowing an unsafe vessel to continue operating. Additionally, why would a shipyard take the risk of performing repairs without fully correcting the issue and thus open themselves up to liability?

[Guest]

As an avid boater I have seen many large objects floating in the rivers and lakes that make up the Great Lakes/Seaway system. I have always felt that the theory of a floating object coming aboard and damaging the Fitzgerald during the storm was too quickly dismissed by many. Under such conditions, I would surmise even a large tree could do some damage to the ships plating and hatch coamings. Over the years I have had to take evasive action on numerous occassions (although mostly in the rivers) to avoid floating trees / large pieces of dock structures. Bear in mind that for the most part, only a fraction of the total size of these objects is visible at and above the waterline, with most of its mass below. While I concede the chances of a such a collision on the night in question is low, it is not impossible. As said before, I believe that this theory is too quickly dismissed, and the topside damage reported by the Fitzgerald is made to suggest the hull hogging while striking a shoal.

[MN Boater]

A few years back We had a Crib float up and beach along the Hotel row in Duluth.This crib turned out to be a Footing for a pear or dock that was built and filled with rocks and sunk in the mud for a footing.This Crib is made of hardwood and is about 20 feet buy 40 feet,and weighed tons.What's to say there isn't hundreds of objects floating around that could have been big enough to take the rails and the hatch coaming apart,Or tear open covers.And with the water comeing over the decks flooding the holds faster than the pumps could pump, from top side?

Just think of the large, unseen objects floating around, maybe almost completely submerged from that heavy rain storm that hit Duluth this summer. Full trees, big LP tanks, all kinds of debris went into the lake. On top of an 30 foot wave, they could really become a missile and do some damage.

[standuffer]

Or tear open covers. And with the water coming over the decks flooding the holds faster than the pumps could pump, from topside?

Cargo holds on Great Lakes bulk freighters cannot be pumped out when loaded because the cargo itself is in the way of any suction screen. Ballast tanks however can be pumped whether loaded or unloaded. Problems can arise however when the ballast tanks are taking on water (leaking) faster than the pumps are capable of removing it.

[mn brett]

A few years back We had a Crib float up and beach along the Hotel row in Duluth.This crib turned out to be a Footing for a pear or dock that was built and filled with rocks and sunk in the mud for a footing.This Crib is made of hardwood and is about 20 feet buy 40 feet,and weighed tons.What's to say there isn't hundreds of objects floating around that could have been big enough to take the rails and the hatch coaming apart,Or tear open covers.And with the water comeing over the decks flooding the holds faster than the pumps could pump, from top side?

[Guest]

Much has been made concerning the report that the Fitzgerald losing a fence rail. This is used as by many as proof of the vessel bottoming out on shoals, causing the hull to flex and thus leading to the wires making up the fence breaking. However, in viewing photographs online of two catastrophic hull fractures that have occurred in the last 20 years, the Beechglen and and the Algowood incidents, it appears that neither of their fence rails snapped due their hulls fracturing. I would surmise that if the Fitzgerald had suffered damages to the degree that those two ships had, while in a major storm, it would have broken up quickly rather than slowly sinking over a period of approximately three hours.

Furthermore, was the actual communication received by the Anderson from the Fitzgerald state that they had "lost a fencerail" or that they had a "fence rail down?" I have seen this fact related differently between books written on the subject. Although both statements can be interperted as being identical, they could have different meanings, especially in light of the Fitzgerald reporting having suffered some topside damage.

[WM]

To the person who researched for 25 years. I saw the logbook of the ship that was behind the Fitz that night. contact me at wmoroziuk@bell.net

[Mich Alex]

The Fitzgerald's steering pole rotated in a circle on the base like the Herbert C. Jackson's, not like the typical steering pole that moves straight fore and aft.

[Guest]

In my opinion, a mistake commonly made by many people theorizing about the Fitzgerald loss is that they want to attribute the wreck to one particular cause. I have researched passenger aircraft crashes for the past twenty five years and have found that in almost 95%+ cases, a crash is usually caused by a sequence of events, any one of which on its own would not have caused the accident. While this in some way is like comparing apples to oranges, an investigative approach towards any such occurrence, whether it be an aircraft or a ship, should explore the possibility that a series of cascading failures led up to the accident. This is particularly true when an obvious cause is not readily apparent. As far as the wreckage is concerned, I wonder if any accident reconstruction software has been developed that could take the wreck’s condition and debris field and work out a possible scenario of the vessel's final break up? As much of the wreck is under the mud, I imagine it is very possible that the one vital clue that could answer all of the questions is lost forever.

[MN Boater]

So I find it strange that the pole could be pushed back towards the pilot house by the force of water resistance as the ship plunged, but not be forced back forward by momentum when the Fitzgerald struck the bottom of the lake hard enough to produce the heavy buckling that is featured so prominently on the forward section. It just seems to me that the combination of heavy buckling forward (surmised to have occurred by the hard impact of the ship on the bottom) and the steering pole position, along with the location of debris piled in the back of the chartroom, are contradictory pieces of evidence of the ship's final break-up sequence.

The thing to remember is the Fitz weighed thousands of tons, and bringing that to a very sudden stop would do a lot of hull damage but at a very low speed. Look what can happen to a ship that bumps the dock or lock wall hard. It's not enough to make things on the ship fly around, but it will bend the hull. Because of the depth of the water at the sinking site, the Fitz didn't go at a sharp angle bow down when it sank. The boat was longer than the depth of the water it sank in. The Titanic on the other hand had 5 miles of water under her where it could have almost done a nose dive to the bottom, hitting harder and dislodging more equipment.

[wlbblw]

I've noticed over the years that wreckage of any kind can sometimes defy all logic. The conditions that took place when that ship sank were pretty extreme. It's difficult to say what might have caused this & that because no one is really sure how the whole event actually happened from start to finish & there were a lot of forces @ play. We may never fully understand wrecks like that.

[KDHenry]

While I am no expert at all, I would think that the steering pole was probably pushed back by the force of impact on the bottom, not due to the force of water smashing into the pilot house. Although the force of water coming back at the pilot house would have been monumental, the steering pole, by it's structural shape, probably would have been left untouched by the wave of water itself. Although steering poles are good-sized, they are just that, a round pole. Because of this, water would have had a fairly easy time flowing around the pole and leaving the pole in place and undamaged. This is all because of the thin, elongated shape of the pole - thus it has very little water resistance as the water can freely flow all around it (even though the force of the wave was very strong). The force of the impact on the bottom, however, would have forced the pole back towards the pilot house due to the momentum of the entire forward section coming to a sudden stop into the lakebed. I don't know if you are familiar with the wreck of the Titanic at all, but upon impact on the seafloor, the small anchor crane at the very tip of the bow section of the Titanic swung out away from the ship, into a position opposite of which it was normally stored (facing inward towards the ship). Again, this was due to the massive momentum created by the bow section coming to a sudden stop into the seafloor. So, in a nutshell I believe the same concept happened with the Fitz.

[Guest]

Adding to my earlier comments, I also find the final positioning of the Fitzgerald's steering pole somewhat surprising. I believe that this apparatus was mounted with a connection that allowed it to be pivoted backwards as needed (during lay-up, etc.). As such, it could be expected to have some motion during a catastrophic event. So I find it strange that the pole could be pushed back towards the pilot house by the force of water resistance as the ship plunged, but not be forced back forward by momentum when the Fitzgerald struck the bottom of the lake hard enough to produce the heavy buckling that is featured so prominently on the forward section. It just seems to me that the combination of heavy buckling forward (surmised to have occurred by the hard impact of the ship on the bottom) and the steering pole position, along with the location of debris piled in the back of the chartroom, are contradictory pieces of evidence of the ship's final break-up sequence.

[Guest]

I was viewing some footage on youtube of the Fitzgerald wreckage. In the video it appears that a majority of the movable objects in the pilot house piled up in the back of the chartroom, most likely from the ship taking a nose dive into the lake. This would explain many of the forward section's damage characteristics such as the bending backwards of navigational antennas, etc. However, a question that comes to my mind, is that if the extensive damage to the bow (severe wrinkling of the steel structure) was caused by the shock of the ship ploughing hard into the bottom, why wasn't the debris in the chartroom thrown forward towards the front of the pilothouse when the Fitzgerald was suddenly stopped?

With the pilot house full of water, things wouldn't fly or slide around like they would if there was just air in the room. Take your open hand and slap it through the air, then into water of a swimming pool. How fast does your hand stop due to water density?

[Guest]

I was viewing some footage on youtube of the Fitzgerald wreckage. In the video it appears that a majority of the movable objects in the pilot house piled up in the back of the chartroom, most likely from the ship taking a nose dive into the lake. This would explain many of the forward section's damage characteristics such as the bending backwards of navigational antennas, etc. However, a question that comes to my mind, is that if the extensive damage to the bow (severe wrinkling of the steel structure) was caused by the shock of the ship ploughing hard into the bottom, why wasn't the debris in the chartroom thrown forward towards the front of the pilothouse when the Fitzgerald was suddenly stopped?