Boatnerd Discussion Forum

I will say this about the radars on the vessels running in this era. They were all X Band. If you have any experience with X band radar from that time you know they were absolutely usless in heavy weather. Whether that weather was snow or in this case rain. So a 3 mile picture is pure speculation. My guess is it was an "amber" or "green" sweep cloud from the center of the PPI outwards.

[quote="Guest"]Mark Thompson in his book, "Steamboats and Sailors of the Great Lakes", published in 1991 wrote, "Underwater photos and videotapes of the Fitzgerald reportedly show that a large amount of cable had been run off one of the ship's forward mooring winches." He did not list his source for this.

I'm including a screen capture I took back in the late 2010s from a TV documentary about the Edmund Fitzgerald. With all the cables jumbled and entangled in the wreckage, it's difficult to make out which forward winch, if any, has cable run off it.[/quote]


Thanks, that must have been where I read this. Given the publication date of the book, I'm assuming the author's information likely came from the Michigan Sea Grant expedition in 1989. It would be interesting to find the factual information actually recorded during the USCG underwater survey done in 1976 as what appears in the official report is almost certainly a general summary of the information gathered during the investigation.

On page 237 of Frederick Stonehouse's The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald 2006 edition, he relates how one unnamed book that came out during that timeframe claimed the Edmund Fitzgerald was actually carrying a load of salt. Apparently, the claim is that the salt absorbed the water leaking into the hold to the point that the weight sank the ship. That is a really strange and unfounded claim but I was wondering if anyone knows what book he is referring to?

Mark Thompson in his book, "Steamboats and Sailors of the Great Lakes", published in 1991 wrote, "Underwater photos and videotapes of the Fitzgerald reportedly show that a large amount of cable had been run off one of the ship's forward mooring winches." He did not list his source for this.

I'm including a screen capture I took back in the late 2010s from a TV documentary about the Edmund Fitzgerald. With all the cables jumbled and entangled in the wreckage, it's difficult to make out which forward winch, if any, has cable run off it.

I doubt that Frederick Shannon ever released the book he indicated was going to be available in the mid 1990s as I can find no mention of it on the internet and I have never seen a copy for sale either new or second hand. I seem to recall sending in an advance payment for this book but never heard anything else about it. Does anyone know anything about what stopped it from being released or if it in fact ever existed?

Unfortunately, my wife purchased a copy of his video of the 1994 expedition when it came out later that year which caused a considerable amount of controversy. This became the first item I ever sold on ebay about a year and a half later after being convinced not to toss it in the trash.
.

[quote="Guest"]Show me a valid report of any cable paid out on the deck of the Fitz. It does not exist because it never happened. I don’t know where people get this stuff.[/quote]

"As far as where people get this stuff" I recall that this report came out during one of the 1990s era expeditions, most like the one by Shannon but I'm unsure if that is actually the case. Regardless, it was published in some form and not made up (at least) by anyone that mentioned it here. I will make an attempt to find the source of this report but more for informational purposes for readers of this thread than to prove it to any single individual.

I think the poor mods on this forum dread these Fitzgerald threads because they get way too political, emotional, and heated. So I will bow out of this one, after my thanks.

Duluth Guest, I will do my homework on the hydrodynamic forces during lake storms and see if I can come up with examples backing your claim. Start another thread of your examples so we can separate it from this thread. So thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will read and watch the videos again and see what I can glean what has been missed.

To others reading this thread, use the search function for former Fitzgerald threads and see if there is information or answers there first before posting. That gives the moderators less to worry about.

Thank you mods for doing a wonderful job keeping this site off of politics and rumors.

Jared

[quote="Guest"]

On 24 miles range with radar technology of the 60 s or 7o s with no VRM no EBL saying that a ship ahead of us by 14 + miles passed too close to à certain point is at best an Educated Guess.I worked with these radars in Ships head up only , a lot of approx.
Captain[/quote]

I previously questioned the ability of commercial navigation radar equipment or the mid-1970s to make such a determination in another thread and got shut down pretty quickly. I'm glad to see someone with some hands-on experience give an opinion. I have always questioned how accurate those radar fixes could have been without maintaining some type of manual plot and the lack of an electronic playback capability of the radar traces themselves. In addition, the NTSB and CG reports indicate there is some inconsistency between the testimony of Captain Cooper and the Anderson's watch officers concerning the relative positions of their vessel and Fitzgerald during the time period in question. This made it impossible to reconstruct an accurate trackline for both the Anderson and Fitzgerald during the investigation due to the number of inconsistencies presented by the Anderson's crew. Furthermore, much of the evidence was given in hindsight and from memory alone without a written record of the actual events being taken as they occurred (pages 90-91 of the USCG Report). As I don't believe ships on the lakes in the mid-1970s were equipped with transponders, I'm assuming that all radar information was presented as a primary return. With the Fitzgerald deeply laden and in heavy seas, it seems logical that the ship's cabin structures and stack would have been the most significant features to generate a return echo in addition to whatever portion of the hull was above the prevailing seas at any given moment. This information would have been further affected by the sea return. As such, I would regard any reference to the Fitzgerald being too close to the shoal area based on radar data alone that was obtained in a heavy sea state as an educated guess at best given the technology of the day. I'm not sure of what type of radar sets were installed on the Anderson at the time but it would be interesting to see what was their current calibration status at the time and their accuracy performance vs. distance operating parameters. I know Captain Cooper has become something of a folk hero over the years, but regardless of what many would like to believe he was not there that night but rather several miles away from the Fitzgerald. I will admit that despite my doubts, he may well be correct in what he believed and I will not criticize someone not here to defend himself or offer a rebuttal. But to blindly accept his assertion one must also accept the fact that Captian McSorely was negligent in some way by putting his ship into peril while passing through an area in which he was likely well-acquainted given his many years of experience.

[quote="Jared"]How come no other ship before or since the Fitzgerald have had this problem with hydrostatic pressure? The energy is constantly changing and escaping in a storm.[/quote]

Hydrodynamics have played a role in [b]ALL[/b] of the great lakes vessels and their traverses across the lakes over the years. It's absolutely nothing new and affects all vessels on the great lakes, oceans and rivers. Hydrodynamics are what caused the Ever Given grounding in the Suez Canal just this past year.

A phenomenon referred to as the Squat Effect occurs when a vessel travels over shallow water. You can Google it if you'd like to know more. The acceleration of the fluid between the hull and the seabed results in a decrease in pressure and thus, an increase in vessel draft. This is the Bernoulli Principle in action, established in 1738 so again, it's really not a new idea. This is the primary reason for speed limits in rivers with the wake and displacement being merely secondary reasons. If Great Lakes vessels travel to rapidly through shallow areas, the hydrodynamics cause the hulls to spring, bend and vibrate. It will also cause loss of steerage. This has been well documented for many years by many Great Lakes vessels. It's been even videoed on Great Lakes vessels on several occasions and can happen over shoal areas as well as within rivers. It was also discussed during the Fitzgerald trial by the Naval Architects who were on the stand.

As far as the Fitzgerald's course after 1352 on 11/10 goes. No one, including the USCG and NTSB can say with much certainty what it was. It is likely the THE question that would best illuminate the mystery of this wreck. It was a pure speculative guess by the investigating authorities (Anderson wasn't tracking the Fitzgerald at this point) and their reasoning was that any other course would have been deemed "unacceptable by the master". It did make sense; it was the heading usually taken when on this particular northerly route and it provided a clear, safe course between the islands. She would have passed well North of Chummy and McMillan Banks but likely near the Hummock which is of no consequence at 84 ft deep. They had to start somewhere but it's certainly not scripture. Yet, when then Anderson reached the same location at the West end of Michipicoten, where the Fitzgerald was said to have steered onto the 141 course for the Soo, Cooper chose a different course. Further, in sworn testimony by both Capt. Cooper and Morgan Clark, Fitzgerald was never plotted to the port side of Anderson's heading after they began plotting for her. Fitzgerald was always to the starboard side of the Anderson's heading.
Had she been on the course assumed by the USCG, Fitzgerald should have certainly been well to the port side of the Anderson's heading. We know quite clearly what the Anderson's course was and this is an inconsistency that was noted during the trial as well. When it was addressed, the USCG and NTSB, resolved by saying that the Clark and Cooper were mistaken about their plots. This has certainly cast some doubt on the guessed NTSB and USCG course through this area.

If you really wanna learn about this event, pick up or print off a nautical map of Lake Superior. Grab a pair of compasses and plot the Anderson's course (speed, headings, distance and etc.) It's well documented. Do it in pencil as you'll likely be erasing a lot before you get it right. Once you have that plotted, draw the assumed USCG and NTSB course for the Fitzgerald in the same manner. Compare the testimony, distances and times to see if it makes sense. I guarantee this will be an educational exercise beyond anything you'll get from a podcast.

[quote="Guest"]What cables were run out?[/quote]

There's a mess behind the port side pilothouse on the spar deck. He might be seeing the wires that run through the stanchions or winch cables.

Maybe someone else can comment on running safety wires from the focsle to the aft engine house. I recall on the 1913 wrecks that the cable was run out on the Hydrus and Smith (the only ones upright). I also think the survivors on the Steinbrenner mentioned running the cable for the crew up front to make it to the stern.

Show me a valid report of any cable paid out on the deck of the Fitz. It does not exist because it never happened. I don’t know where people get this stuff.

What cables were run out?

[quote="Guest"][quote="Jared"]How come no other ship before or since the Fitzgerald have had this problem with hydrostatic pressure? The energy is constantly changing and escaping in a storm.

As for the cables on deck, that can be explained away by having them deployed during the early stages of the voyage. Secondly McSorley believed to have made that comment after 6pm when the seas were cresting past 18ft and 12ft of water was covering the deck. Of course you're going to order nobody out on deck when you got green water touching the hatch crane.[/quote]

So Jared you believe the Fitz cracked her hull and was not near the shoal area's?

Anderson skip Cooper and those on the bridge with him did they not all testify that the Fitz was too close to the shoal area?[/quote]

On 24 miles range with radar technology of the 60 s or 7o s with no VRM no EBL saying that a ship ahead of us by 14 + miles passed too close to à certain point is at best an Educated Guess.I worked with these radars in Ships head up only , a lot of approx.
Captain

[quote="Guest"]

So Jared you believe the Fitz cracked her hull and was not near the shoal area's?

Anderson skip Cooper and those on the bridge with him did they not all testify that the Fitz was too close to the shoal area?[/quote]

First off it was only Captain Cooper who made the comment that he thought she was "might and thought" (Key word there), that she may have been too close to Caribou Island. The 1976-78 inquiry the mates on board the Anderson did not give the board any indication that she was close too close. Cooper said that in his interview some 15 years later along with "either" a hull failure. The analysis done by the NTSB and USCG show that the Fitzgerald was not all that close to the island. Here is a fun fact that is also overlooked, the Fitzgerald's smaller radar WAS functional. It was only working 3 miles or so out, but it was still operational. That would give the Fitzgerald an eye close in. Also RDF was functional on both islands and copper mine point.

Secondly I did not say anything about her hull cracking. The events that caused her to fill up in the first place will be debated nonstop, but I will side with the CG and NTSB, not the LCA or amateur enthusiasts.

As for the cables, it was standard practice in the era before tunnels that the winch cables were strung out end to end when the weather got rough so the crew could put on safety harnesses and transverse the decks as long as the waves were not causing the spar deck to completely awash. I believe that there are a few on this forum who lived it and could detail it a little better than myself. I cannot recommend enough listening to Ric Mixter's podcast about the Fitzgerald and her sinking. 4 1/2 hours of multiple and original interviews. There is no lean or spin, just the facts. It's shipwreckpodcasts.com, it's worth the $20, and I think it can answer 88% of all the questions have about the Edmund Fitzgerald.

[quote="Guest"]As such, it seems that McSorely was attempting to stop anyone from venturing out topside for whatever reason that will likely never be known. I believe that the problems onboard were far more serious than reported the scope of which may have even been unknown to the crew.[/quote]

Because of the heavy seas on the deck? Cooper gave the same orders for the crew of the Anderson.

[quote="Jared"]How come no other ship before or since the Fitzgerald have had this problem with hydrostatic pressure? The energy is constantly changing and escaping in a storm.

As for the cables on deck, that can be explained away by having them deployed during the early stages of the voyage. Secondly McSorley believed to have made that comment after 6pm when the seas were cresting past 18ft and 12ft of water was covering the deck. Of course you're going to order nobody out on deck when you got green water touching the hatch crane.[/quote]

What would have been the purpose of running the cables out earlier in the voyage? Seems if the ship was expected to hit bad weather all such items topside would have been secured in preparation for the storm. As for the comment about allowing no one out on the deck, that could also be interpreted as there was some serious discussion in the pilothouse about doing so. I doubt anyone would attempt to venture out on deck in that weather to simply move forward or aft when the two tunnels were available. Therefore it appears that there was some reason other than reaching either end of the ship to give such a proposal consideration. As such, it seems that McSorely was attempting to stop anyone from venturing out topside for whatever reason that will likely never be known. I believe that the problems onboard were far more serious than reported the scope of which may have even been unknown to the crew.

[quote="Jared"]How come no other ship before or since the Fitzgerald have had this problem with hydrostatic pressure? The energy is constantly changing and escaping in a storm.

As for the cables on deck, that can be explained away by having them deployed during the early stages of the voyage. Secondly McSorley believed to have made that comment after 6pm when the seas were cresting past 18ft and 12ft of water was covering the deck. Of course you're going to order nobody out on deck when you got green water touching the hatch crane.[/quote]

So Jared you believe the Fitz cracked her hull and was not near the shoal area's?

Anderson skip Cooper and those on the bridge with him did they not all testify that the Fitz was too close to the shoal area?

How come no other ship before or since the Fitzgerald have had this problem with hydrostatic pressure? The energy is constantly changing and escaping in a storm.

As for the cables on deck, that can be explained away by having them deployed during the early stages of the voyage. Secondly McSorley believed to have made that comment after 6pm when the seas were cresting past 18ft and 12ft of water was covering the deck. Of course you're going to order nobody out on deck when you got green water touching the hatch crane.

Duluth Guest - thanks for your sketch. I wonder how much a ship in heavy seas would squat in the trough of large waves which would of course decrease the depth under hull. You mentioned hydrostatic pressure possibly causing structural damage. Would a decreased depth under hull also increase hydrostatic pressure? In a nutshell, even if the Fitz didn't hit the shoal, the hydrostatic pressure would increase as depth decreases.

We are all guessing so let's take a moment to honor those souls who lost their lives that night.

A question I have had in my mind concerns the overheard comment made by McSorley to the effect of "don't allow anyone on deck" in correlation with the later discovery that some cable had been played out on one of the deck winches. As from what I understand, the latter had to be done intentionally, obviously the situation at some point compelled the risk of sending one or more crewmen out on the deck. What would have been the possible reasoning for doing so in such weather if something had not happened topside?

Since we're talking about the Fitzgerald and the shoal area, here is a question that I always had...(which will probably make it obvious that I am not a mariner)...

The story goes that the Fitzgerald sailed close to that shoal area near Caribou Island and subsequently reported a variety of issues to the Anderson. And so many observors attribute the shoal for causing a fracture to the hull etc. Could another possibility be that the Fitzgerald developed an issue prior to traversing that area, and that they purposely sailed close to Caribou Island as a way to temporarily protect the ship from the weather so they could better investigate the issues they were developing?

Again, this question could be nonsensical to someone that actually sails, but has always been a curiousity...