Edmund Fitzgerald Sinking - New Information

[Duluth Guest]

All of any of us can do is guess. Truly. And that doesn't really resolve any of the mystery of the event. In either situation, whether she struck the shoals physically or the hydrodynamics caused the structural failure, it'd be considered shoaling.

I don't think you're going find many who disagree that IF she indeed traveled through the 6 fathom shoal area of the North Bank, then there were certainly going to be some increased stresses to the hull. The hydrodynamic forces alone could likely have caused at least some structural failure. But, we don't know that she went through there conclusively and there is no way to prove she did or didn't. So it's a little pointless to try to solve an unsolvable problem. Best we can do is look at what we know as fact and draw some observations. We can develop opinions or hypothesis from those observations. From there, it's experimental work and mathematics to develop support for even the smallest piece of that puzzle. It's a lot of work and most don't bother.

From my own observations, I believe ( this is an opinion and I am not presenting it as factual) that the Fitzgerald did indeed travel through the shoal area and that structural damage occurred as a result of that passage. It's just my opinion. I have some done some real research and mathematics to back this up but I won't get into it all here; it's a bit much to write in this small format. As a little tid-bit, I have attached a scale illustration, just a screen shot really, of the clearance between the hull and the bottom at a 45' DOW in a calm sea situation. Sometimes, seeing things in scale helps clarify the real world situation. Understand, there are areas in the 6 fathom shoal area shallower than 45'.

You have to be very careful to weed through the hear-say stuff and the actual factual information too. There are many books that are entirely hear-say and carry very little valid, real evidence of any sort. Whenever a publication is based upon what someone said about the Fitzgerald, you've got hear-say. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but far to often, opinions get presented as facts. Some of these books contain so much sensationalism, opinions and drama that I think they could be considered fictional. Unfortunately, there are many, many individuals who bite this bait and uphold it as holy scripture, factual evidence despite the massive holes in logic and math.

It would really be interesting and fun ( I am a pretty big geek obviously) to do a fluid dynamics evaluation ( either digitally simulated or within a wave tank) to see how the seas act over the North Bank. Maybe someday.

Cheers.

[Duluth Guest]

All of any of us can do is guess. Truly. And that doesn't really resolve any of the mystery of the event. In either situation, whether she struck the shoals physically or the hydrodynamics caused the structural failure, it'd be considered shoaling.

I don't think you're going find many who disagree that IF she indeed traveled through the 6 fathom shoal area of the North Bank, then there were certainly going to be some increased stresses to the hull. The hydrodynamic forces alone could likely have caused at least some structural failure. But, we don't know that she went through there conclusively and there is no way to prove she did or didn't. So it's a little pointless to try to solve an unsolvable problem. Best we can do is look at what we know as fact and draw some observations. We can develop opinions or hypothesis from those observations. From there, it's experimental work and mathematics to develop support for even the smallest piece of that puzzle. It's a lot of work and most don't bother.

From my own observations, I believe ( this is an opinion and I am not presenting it as factual) that the Fitzgerald did indeed travel through the shoal area and that structural damage occurred as a result of that passage. It's just my opinion. I have some done some real research and mathematics to back this up but I won't get into it all here; it's a bit much to write in this small format. As a little tid-bit, I have attached a scale illustration, just a screen shot really, of the clearance between the hull and the bottom at a 45' DOW in a calm sea situation. Sometimes, seeing things in scale helps clarify the real world situation. Understand, there are areas in the 6 fathom shoal area shallower than 45'.

You have to be very careful to weed through the hear-say stuff and the actual factual information too. There are many books that are entirely hear-say and carry very little valid, real evidence of any sort. Whenever a publication is based upon what someone said about the Fitzgerald, you've got hear-say. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but far to often, opinions get presented as facts. Some of these books contain so much sensationalism, opinions and drama that I think they could be considered fictional. Unfortunately, there are many, many individuals who bite this bait and uphold it as holy scripture, factual evidence despite the massive holes in logic and math.

It would really be interesting and fun ( I am a pretty big geek obviously) to do a fluid dynamics evaluation ( either digitally simulated or within a wave tank) to see how the seas act over the North Bank. Maybe someday.

Cheers.

[guest]

o.n. operated the vessel undwe bareboat charter. n.w. mutual ins used the charter money to pay dividends to its shareholders

[Guest]

The Caribou Island Shoal area is pretty well known. It wasn't really very much a mystery, it was known to exist for decades. Vessels have wrecked on it in the past and debris from those wrecks remains there so realize than any rivets or sheet metal recovered from the shoal area or within the North Bank is not necessarily from the Fitzgerald. The shoal's remoteness and the fact that it is well off the usual upbound and down-bound shipping lanes, made it a relatively low priority for surveying.

Also remember, the equipment used for shoal surveying in 1976 was relatively crude by today's technological standards. The Atlas Deso 10, which was used for the 1976 Canadian Coast Guard survey, was an analog, ink-paper echo sounder with about 200 Watts of power. By todays standards, the average digital fishing sonar system is more powerful and more accurate. You can choose to believe the 1976 Data developed by this equipment, or you can choose to believe the numbers put out by NOAA just 3 years ago. Personally, I think I'll use the later.

The area of Michipicoten Island and Caribou Island is pock-marked with various shoals or banks. Chummy Bank, McMillan Bank, Northwest Banks, Butch Bank and The Hummock are all in the area. None of these are really of much consequence as they are too deep to pose a threat to vessels. Chummy Bank is the shallowest at 48 ft and is a very small area.

The 6 fathom shoal area is part of an area of glaciated, boulder ridden sandstone shallows that extends nearly 5 miles Northerly from the North tip of Caribou Island called the North Bank. Beyond 5 miles to the North, the depth drops off to around 150 ft until you reach the gravelly hump of McMillan Bank where it rises again to about 90 ft. To the East of the North Bank, the depth plunges very rapidly into a trench over 800 ft deep. To the West, it's much shallower, gradually descending to about 300 ft. East to West, the longest distance of shoal area on the North Bank that is shallower than 50 ft is about 3 miles long. The 6 fathom shoal area is a region of the North Bank at at the northern edge where the depth varies largely in a series of humps.

There are several areas of concern for commercial vessels in the 6 fathom shoal area. There are 5 humps in the North Bank that have been more recently catalogued at 31 ft. Three of these areas lie within the area regarded as the 6 fathom shoal region and only two of these were found by the Canadian Coast Guard Hydrological Survey in 1976. A third, larger hump in this region rises to 40 ft. Additionally, there is also an oblong shaped hump that runs Northwest-Southeast for about 3/8th of a mile to the East of the 6 fathom shoal area that rises to 39 ft. The vast majority of the North Bank is less than 50 ft. The bank drops off sharply on all sides at about 60 FOW. The Eastern side of the North Bank is a nearly 30 foot tall vertical face.

Duluth guest thanks for that great detailed reply. You seem to know a lot about this area what is your best guess do you think the Fitz bottomed out on one of the shoals, a theory of Anderson capt. Cooper or did she fracture her hull in the area of the shoals and it was just a coincidence being in that area? Thank you in advance.

[FWE]

Divers performed a forensic survey on the shoal ( have those pics) only coming away with inconclusive findings .

[Duluth Guest]

The Caribou Island Shoal area is pretty well known. It wasn't really very much a mystery, it was known to exist for decades. Vessels have wrecked on it in the past and debris from those wrecks remains there so realize than any rivets or sheet metal recovered from the shoal area or within the North Bank is not necessarily from the Fitzgerald. The shoal's remoteness and the fact that it is well off the usual upbound and down-bound shipping lanes, made it a relatively low priority for surveying.

Also remember, the equipment used for shoal surveying in 1976 was relatively crude by today's technological standards. The Atlas Deso 10, which was used for the 1976 Canadian Coast Guard survey, was an analog, ink-paper echo sounder with about 200 Watts of power. By todays standards, the average digital fishing sonar system is more powerful and more accurate. You can choose to believe the 1976 Data developed by this equipment, or you can choose to believe the numbers put out by NOAA just 3 years ago. Personally, I think I'll use the later.

The area of Michipicoten Island and Caribou Island is pock-marked with various shoals or banks. Chummy Bank, McMillan Bank, Northwest Banks, Butch Bank and The Hummock are all in the area. None of these are really of much consequence as they are too deep to pose a threat to vessels. Chummy Bank is the shallowest at 48 ft and is a very small area.

The 6 fathom shoal area is part of an area of glaciated, boulder ridden sandstone shallows that extends nearly 5 miles Northerly from the North tip of Caribou Island called the North Bank. Beyond 5 miles to the North, the depth drops off to around 150 ft until you reach the gravelly hump of McMillan Bank where it rises again to about 90 ft. To the East of the North Bank, the depth plunges very rapidly into a trench over 800 ft deep. To the West, it's much shallower, gradually descending to about 300 ft. East to West, the longest distance of shoal area on the North Bank that is shallower than 50 ft is about 3 miles long. The 6 fathom shoal area is a region of the North Bank at at the northern edge where the depth varies largely in a series of humps.

There are several areas of concern for commercial vessels in the 6 fathom shoal area. There are 5 humps in the North Bank that have been more recently catalogued at 31 ft. Three of these areas lie within the area regarded as the 6 fathom shoal region and only two of these were found by the Canadian Coast Guard Hydrological Survey in 1976. A third, larger hump in this region rises to 40 ft. Additionally, there is also an oblong shaped hump that runs Northwest-Southeast for about 3/8th of a mile to the East of the 6 fathom shoal area that rises to 39 ft. The vast majority of the North Bank is less than 50 ft. The bank drops off sharply on all sides at about 60 FOW. The Eastern side of the North Bank is a nearly 30 foot tall vertical face.

[Jared]

I am still both fascinated and confused about the Fitz sinking and the six fathom shoal area!

After reading through this thread i still don't know what the facts are regarding this six fathom shoal area if it exists and if so how big and deep is it? There seems to be a lot of differing opinions and i don't know what to believe..

The depth is obvious by its name? However the average depth of the area around the North Bank is in the 45-70ft range. Length of the shallow shelf is around 1/3 of a mile.

[Guest]

I am still both fascinated and confused about the Fitz sinking and the six fathom shoal area!

After reading through this thread i still don't know what the facts are regarding this six fathom shoal area if it exists and if so how big and deep is it? There seems to be a lot of differing opinions and i don't know what to believe...

[up north George]

As in the Derbyshire incident, the true facts would end the controversy..

What true facts are you talking about?

The true (unknown) facts of what actually happened instead of the yearly assumptions and guessed theories that people keep insisting on endlessly going on about year after year after year.

I don't know why people think there are more "real facts" that none of the investigators or those actually doing the job or naval architects haven't thought about or been suggested. There is no one or the other theories out there. There are several. We may never know, and the families may never know. Either way it's a tragedy that should be let rest. This should not continue into the likes of who actually killed Kennedy, or did we land on the moon?

[Shipwatcher1]

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.

I think people get upset about it because year after year this is literally beating a dead horse. The same theories are tossed about every year as well. It seems to get worse and worse every year too in the respect that so many people see a photo of a pilot house forward laker and immediately say "hey that looks like the Fitrz" or "she was a sister to the Fitz". Everyone ties every little thing to the Fitz. Finally, the Fitz seems to overshadow every other wreck that happened out there, many of which had far greater loss of life, for example the Bradley or the Morrell. Then there are the thousands of great lakes related gifts that have the Fitz name plastered all over them, a constant reminder to the surviving family of the crew.

[Jared]

At the end of the day the wreck site tells the story of what happened that night. The interpretation of the wreckage is where the speculation and theories begin. I hold more credibility to the people who have seen and studied the site first hand (Fred Shannon, NTSB, Coast Guard, Navy, Tom Farnquist, etc), than authors and "people in the know" who propagate this nearly 5 decades later. It's ironic that all the fanfare around the wreck is what causes it to be "unsolved" because diving is prohibited due to the media circus that surrounds it every November. With an extensive probe and high definition video, the Fitzgerald sinking would no longer be a mystery (not that there is much of one to begin with).

There are dozens of lost ships out there yet to be found that need to have their story told, and their loss explained. I'm honored that I have been able to solve close to 30 shipwreck mysteries in the last decade or so.

[MilwBob]

As in the Derbyshire incident, the true facts would end the controversy..

What true facts are you talking about?

The true (unknown) facts of what actually happened instead of the yearly assumptions and guessed theories that people keep insisting on endlessly going on about year after year after year.

[MilwBob]

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

A-men to that!

[Guest]

I grew up during the 1970s and recall when this sinking happened. What is strange about all of this is that although the sinking did garner some headlines when it occurred it seemed like it took a life of its own only after that song came out the following year. To see what I'm talking about look at the marine journals from the 1975-76 timeframe. In fact, I feel that this accident is more controversial today than it was when it happened and probably more so among those that were not yet born or were too young to remember it. Perhaps, as others have pointed out, it is because there were no survivors to relate their stories that this subject has become what it is today. In addition, in the nearly 50 years since, luckily there have been no other major losses that are in any way comparable. I find it somewhat disturbing that probably the most well-known subject concerning shipping on the Great Lakes, outside of those in the hobby or the industry, is the loss of the Fitzgerald. The wreck has spawned a cottage industry of trinkets, particularly in the Lake Superior region, along with a plethora of books and videos that can tell us little to nothing more than was known back in 1975. Anyone visiting Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, can attest to this. During one of my visits to the Soo Locks during the 1990s, I recall overhearing someone who obviously thought he knew more than hr does claim to his companions that the Fitzgerald was the only shop to ever sink on Lake Superior. This pretty much exemplifies what the majority of the general public thinks about the Edmund Fitzgerald and Great Lakes shipping in general.

[hugh3]

The relatives of the crew, after 20 years, finally got an investigation of the remains of the Derbyshire hull.

[hugh3]

In the Derbyshire sinking it took 20 years to get a proper investigation, but they finally did get one.

http://themarineexpress.com/the-mystery ... erbyshire/

[Guest]

As in the Derbyshire incident, the true facts would end the controversy..

What true facts are you talking about?

[Denny]

I too would just like to add and agree with what a few are saying. As it seems every year we have this discussion about the Fitzgerald and her sinking and every year the different causes, possibilities and theories of what might have caused the sinking? Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that and understand that. I too agree with a few people’s comments on her sinking. It’s been nearly 50 years since it has happened and nothing is going to change what happened to her. Let the 29 who were lost Rest In Peace and also let their families have peace and closure as well. It’s time to move on. I guess maybe it’s because there were no survivors or witnesses to the sinking unlike with the Bradley and Morrell that were so captivated by the Fitz sinking or perhaps the media coverage and Lightfoot’s song that keeps the legacy alive. At least through the news media, Lightfoot’s song and the many memorials that at least still keeps the legacy and spirits of the ship and the 29 who died alive. Thank Goodness for that IMO or it might be just forgotten then? Just my thoughts and opinions only here. Not trying to offend anyone!

[guest]

hugh3 you are so correct. unfortunately dead people dont talk

[hugh3]

As in the Derbyshire incident, the true facts would end the controversy...