Fitzgerald Wreck Site

[garbear]

The 11:11 post was mine. Guess I didn't sign in with my user name.

[Guest]

Does anyone have information on the last Great Lakes Vessel that was known to have sunk because of problems with hatches?

[Guest]

Unless the Fitzgerald was different from the boats I sailed on, there is no way shore side unloading equipment could have done any damage to the gaskets. The gaskets went around the entire underside of the hatch. There was no gasket on the coaming itself.
The Huletts and the clamshell-type unloaders did damage to the cargo holds and the coamings. Like I'd mentioned in a previous post, I saw several coamings out of alignment caused by the unloaders.
I don't see anyway possible the hatches being raised by the impact of the waves. There just wasn't any give to the hatch clamps to allow that to happen.
I do agree the boat they did the test on had pretty pristine looking hatches and coamings. I also think a big difference using a fire hose on a boat that was light sitting in the shipyard as opposed to all the forces that were at play the night the Fitzgerald went down. We were about 3 hours ahead of them that night and the weather is something I'll never forget.

[hayhugh2]

Code: Select all

The coamings on the Fitzgerald were square all the way around, and lacked the angled plates that allowed loading chutes to rest easily upon the coamings. 

The angled plate at the end of the hatches was to let the cargo (that fell from the hulets) slide back into the cargo hold and not to support the loading chutes. The hatch was flush with the lip of the coaming and afforded no place for water to push the hatch up. The hatch cover itself was of considerable weight and was so constructed as to fit into the the hatch and not move from side to side or fwd. & aft. There was no evidence that there was any water in the cargo hold, only that the pumps were trying to remove water from the ballast tanks. That's what the pumps were - Ballast pumps. Pump water in for ballast when boat was light (unloaded) and pump water out when loading. 'When loaded the tanks are suppose to be dry and are physically checked every six hours and results posted in both the Engine Room and pilot house.

[Guest]

I would be hesitant to disregard the coast guard report and the NTSB. She very well could have not had hatch clamps on tight enough. All it takes is a one time mistake and a perfect chain reaction to go send a vessel to the bottom. A circumstance that is generally agreed to have happened with the Fitz. I doubt she broke on the surface myself. There is too much damage to the bow. I would take examples of the Argus, Frank Goodyear, and Benjamin Noble to show what a hard impact with the lake bottom can do.

Again, watch the Dive Detectives docu utter nonsense loose hatch clamps caused significant amounts of water to enter the Fitz's holds causing that bad of a list.

Anderson skip Bernie Cooper in my opinion states the most likely theory on the loss of the Fitz..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VXY6tuZ5eU

Hull fracture and or grounding + epic rogue waves = Fitz lost.

After watching the Dive Detectives program on the Fitzgerald and have the following observations.

1. Caution should be exercised by drawing too many comparisons between the Daniel J. Morrell and the Edmund Fitzgerald. Although generally similar in design concept, these ships were separated by some 50 years of construction knowledge. Furthermore, they were entirely different designs built by different shipyards. As the Morrell was 60 years old at the time of her sinking and the Fitzgerald was on 17 years old when lost, the ages of the ships were also on opposite ends of the longevity scale.

2. I also doubt that the hatches covers played a major role in the loss. However, that does not rule out the possibility of them playing a role in the loss. The hatch convers and coamings used in the experiment used on the program appeared to be in pristine condition. It its possible that many of the coamings and gaskets were ineffective on the Fitzgerald, especially from damages suffered while the ship was loaded and unloaded by shoreside equipment. The coamings on the Fitzgerald were square all the way around, and lacked the angled plates that allowed loading chutes to rest easily upon the coamings. As such I would expect these to be subject to some degree of wear and tear over the years. Additionally, I would also anticipate there to be additional damage to the coamings from hullet unloaders, the last of which was retired over 20 years ago. Although it was pointed out on the show that a high wave crossing the deck would tend to push down on the hatches, thus improving its seal, it seems likewise possible that the force of the waves striking the hatch covers could also tend to lift them slightly to allow additional water inside the cargo hold. Although the amount of water allowed per minute into the cargo hold in this manner may be insignificant, over time the accumulation could have become a sizable amount, thus playing a larger role in this disaster than most are willing to accept. This being said, however, water entering the cargo hold does not readily explain the list reported by the Fitzgerald as such a condition is more readily explained by water entering into the side tanks.

3. The rogue wave is a plausible theory especially if the ship had experienced structural damage that allowed it to ride lower in the water.

[wlbblw]

This whole case has so many moving pieces & variables it's almost impossible to wrap your head around. 20 different things all came together in a "Perfect Storm" scenario to doom that ship that night just like the Titanic or Hindenburg & because there were all those different contributing factors - from the change in the weather, the decision to go down the normal course on the lake, the structural problems in the ship's early welded design & longer length, the possible unknown affects of previous groundings & accidents on the hull, the change in the load line certificate, the lack of the proper equipment (for measuring draft, water in the hold, & depth), the lack of proper survival gear (re: suits), the "3 Sisters" hitting the ship at the worst moment, a possible grounding on 6 fathom shoal, damaged & dysfunctional radar, no Loran, no radio beacon at Whitefish Bay, topside damage of unknown origin, and probably even more factors we may never know about make this case almost impossible to fully wrap your head around & I doubt there will ever be a definitive answer to rest everyone's mind. This sinking will live on as the lakes greatest mystery of all the times & even though there isn't much closure on it for anyone hopefully it is now serving as a teaching moment to prevent further disaster by the safety measures taken after we learned from the wreck "what not to do". I reflect back on this incident with great reverence because I've been in some situations that were just as dangerous & I've faced decisions that could have had dire results if the circumstance would have gone bad for me & I know some times the opportunity to live or die can turn on the flip of a coin like that & I feel greatful to have come out of those tough situtations where it easily could have gone the other way & after the fact I realized that I needed to be sharper, & think more clearly so as not to put myself in such dangerous situations by thinking about just how bad it could turn out by remembering things like the sinking of the Fitz.

[guest]

The 8 ton hatch covers on the Anderson did not fail in that terrible storm. Hatch failure on the Morell and the Bradely didn't doom those vessels. Take a look at the pictures of the sinking of the Algoport. That's what happens when there is catastrophic hull failure. The hull fails because it is not supported between wave crests. The hatches come off as a result of the sinking, they are not the direct cause of the sinking. The question should be, why did the hull fail. Was it the result of grounding on a shoal, lack of maintenance, or was it simply not strong enough for the conditions it was subjected to?

[garbear]

Having worked on many ships of the Fitzgeralds vintage, and all of them having the Kestner clamps on them. I can say that even if the clamps were on, and tight, that isn't the end all answer. Because having clamped thousands and thousands of clamps in my day I know for a fact that on several occasions we have tightened and fastened clamps and they were extremely tight, but several things need to be taken into account, the flexion and twisting of the hull can pop clamps in light or moderate seas, bent or deformed hatches can cause clamps to pop. So I bet that all the clamps were on and tight, but the heavy working of the hull in seas, popped clamps, I have witnessed it with my own eyes, and seen hulls work. I don't think its the actual cause, but it explains why some clamps on the fitz were perfectly preserved, and others mangled..

My experience with the clamps was there were occasions where you couldn't put the clamp on no matter what you did. As you mentioned bent hatches and there was also the coamings that were so far out of alignment from being hit by the huletts or other ore unloaders. There were times you couldn't put 3 or 4 clamps on in a row, plus there was a good sized gap between the bottom of the hatch and the top of the coaming.

[garbear]

When I sailed the rule of thumb was all clamps on light/loaded late Fall. We usually started doing this the end of October, early November. Summer we would run loaded with every other clamp on. Never less than that in the Summer.

when did you sail?

1971-79.

[Guest]

Having worked on many ships of the Fitzgeralds vintage, and all of them having the Kestner clamps on them. I can say that even if the clamps were on, and tight, that isn't the end all answer. Because having clamped thousands and thousands of clamps in my day I know for a fact that on several occasions we have tightened and fastened clamps and they were extremely tight, but several things need to be taken into account, the flexion and twisting of the hull can pop clamps in light or moderate seas, bent or deformed hatches can cause clamps to pop. So I bet that all the clamps were on and tight, but the heavy working of the hull in seas, popped clamps, I have witnessed it with my own eyes, and seen hulls work. I don't think its the actual cause, but it explains why some clamps on the fitz were perfectly preserved, and others mangled...

[Guest]

I would be hesitant to disregard the coast guard report and the NTSB. She very well could have not had hatch clamps on tight enough. All it takes is a one time mistake and a perfect chain reaction to go send a vessel to the bottom. A circumstance that is generally agreed to have happened with the Fitz. I doubt she broke on the surface myself. There is too much damage to the bow. I would take examples of the Argus, Frank Goodyear, and Benjamin Noble to show what a hard impact with the lake bottom can do.

The hatch clamps were either on or they weren't. If they weren't on tight enough means that they were just set on the hatch or routine work wasn't done during the season to make sure they weren't loose. That type of clamp has a bolt that you usually tighten once a year. It's not something you tighten every time you put the clamp on.

[CosmicBlue]

I would be hesitant to disregard the coast guard report and the NTSB. She very well could have not had hatch clamps on tight enough. All it takes is a one time mistake and a perfect chain reaction to go send a vessel to the bottom. A circumstance that is generally agreed to have happened with the Fitz. I doubt she broke on the surface myself. There is too much damage to the bow. I would take examples of the Argus, Frank Goodyear, and Benjamin Noble to show what a hard impact with the lake bottom can do.

Again, watch the Dive Detectives docu utter nonsense loose hatch clamps caused significant amounts of water to enter the Fitz's holds causing that bad of a list.

Anderson skip Bernie Cooper in my opinion states the most likely theory on the loss of the Fitz...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VXY6tuZ5eU

Hull fracture and or grounding + epic rogue waves = Fitz lost.

[Guest]

Could a wrecked ship's cargo have any impact upon its rate of deteoriation? Could the iron in the taconite cargo of the Edmund Fitzgerald accelerate corrosion of the steel?

[Guest]

Here is a sidescan taken by GLHS in 2006. Others that were taken recently I do not have in my personal collection or allowed to release. But in both this released one and ones of acquaintances, the spar deck does not appear. These are online if someone knows the site.

Those are some compelling images. However, does anyone know if an expert analysis of these images has ever been undertaken. I believe that the amount of pellets and sediment thrown onto the spar deck may be interfering with the scan. Although it is possible that the spar deck has collapsed since the last visitation to the wreck occurred, this cannot be ascertained until another survey is completed. I understand the sensitivity some have with the wreck as it has occurred in recent history, but I firmly believe that it is time that a survey to ascertain the condition of the wreck by ROVs be considered. With the technological advances in this field, however, there is no reason for humans to revisit the wreck. This ship sank nearly 40 years ago, and has unfortunately fueled a cottage industry that anyone traveling to Michigan's upper peninsula can attest too. That being said, I firmly believe that by classifying the wreck as off limits to any legitimate investigation we are neglecting the tragedy that led to the death of these 29 men. I mean legitimate in the sense of a government approved operation with no avenue for commercial profit, whether direct or indirect, for any of the individuals or associations involved.

[Jared]

I would be hesitant to disregard the coast guard report and the NTSB. She very well could have not had hatch clamps on tight enough. All it takes is a one time mistake and a perfect chain reaction to go send a vessel to the bottom. A circumstance that is generally agreed to have happened with the Fitz. I doubt she broke on the surface myself. There is too much damage to the bow. I would take examples of the Argus, Frank Goodyear, and Benjamin Noble to show what a hard impact with the lake bottom can do.

[middlerouge]

When I sailed the rule of thumb was all clamps on light/loaded late Fall. We usually started doing this the end of October, early November. Summer we would run loaded with every other clamp on. Never less than that in the Summer.

when did you sail?

[garbear]

When I sailed the rule of thumb was all clamps on light/loaded late Fall. We usually started doing this the end of October, early November. Summer we would run loaded with every other clamp on. Never less than that in the Summer.

[guest]

The thought that the hatch clamps were responsible for the loss of the ship is utter nonsense. That is just the Coast Guard coming up with a cause that didn't point back at them, as they were the ones who were responsible for inspecting the ship for safety. Her hull failed catastrophically on the surface just like the Bradley and Morell. The only difference was that there were witness to the preceding two disasters who saw the ships break in two. In the case of the Bradley it was also claimed that she did not break up on the surface and that the witness were wrong. This claim has been proven false. It is much more convenient to accuse the unfortunate victims for causing the disaster not the regulators or the companies.

[CosmicBlue]

The theory that loose hatch clamps was the cause of the Fitz's listing and taking on water and thus causing it's sinking was disproved in the Dive Detectives documentary. No way enough water could have entered partially clamped hatches to cause that bad of a list. And I doubt the Fitz was out in that storm with loose hatch clamps to begin with as I have read many captains and sailors say they highly doubt the Fitz's crew would leave hatch clamps loose on those seas. Anyone believe otherwise?

I think the Fitz suffered a hull fracture either from poor design and or by grounding on the shoal or a combination of both. Then the rogue waves that Anderson captain Cooper was talking about put the listing Fitz's bow under never to recover.

And what about the Fitz's track line did she indeed cross over the six fathom shoal area or not? The 1976 survey showed the shoal covered an area much larger than the Fitz's charts would have indicated.

[Scott]

Seeing these images is good evidence of the thoughts I've held about the wreck. That being, storm waves drove the bow of the crippled Fitzgerald into the lake and it could not recover. The Fitzgerald, being longer than the lake is deep, hit the bottom with the stern still above water. The force of hitting bottom must have caused tremendous damage as evidenced by the wreckage we've seen. This also explains the stern section being inverted and the midsection basically disintigrating at one point. I remember reading some thoughts stated by Bernie Cooper some years ago about how he often wondered if a few huge waves that engulfed the Anderson could have been the ones that doomed the Fitzgerald. I believe this to be true. Again, just my opinion, but the original USCG report was also based on opinion pretty much :)