Edmund Fitzgerald Sinking - New Information

[Guest]

Part of the tragedy of the Fitzgerald was that they did not have the luxory of modern weather forcasting. The NWS issued gale warnings the afternoon of November 10? Yet there were still ships out on the lake. I realize that things are different these days, but we've definately learned from a few mistakes in the past.

The National Weather Service office in Chicago issued gale warnings for Lake Superior during the early evening of November 9. They later upgraded the gale warnings to storm warnings at 2:00 November 10, 1975.

But the improvements in weather forecasting on the Great Lakes came about in several ways. First was the deployment of weather buoys on the lakes, with Lake Michigan getting the first two in 1978.

Second was an increased understanding by scientists of extra-tropical cyclones, such as the Edmund Fitzgerald storm. Scientists investigated the specifics of the failings of the Presidents Day Storm of 1978 forecast along with other Noreasters. from which came an understanding of the physics, warm and cold conveyor belts, jet stream interactions, etc.

Third is the increased computer power over the past 4 decades which provides an improved spatial resolution (horizontal grid spacing of 3km in some models) and increased temporal resolution (hourly output), increased vertical layers in the models and better physics - such as radiation schemes, micro-physics and cumulus schemes, to name a few.

Fourth is the ingest of newer datasets into the models that wasn't available back in 1975. Back then models ingested surface observations and balloon soundings. Today, we still use those two data sets, but we now ingest satellite data, radar data, even non-traditional data, such as meso-nets (weather data provided by state and provincial agencies, schools,etc). All this results in improved skill in numerical weather prediction models (NWP).

Of course all of these improvements came about gradually, but in the 46 years since the Edmund Fitzgerald's loss, we have come along way with weather forecasting. And that has been of benefit to all of us.

- Brian

[Guest]

When the weather forecast came out on the afternoon of November 9, 1975, the trackline of the storm was projected to be south of Lake Superior, meaning the Edmund Fitzgerald would have encountered northeast winds, which she did. It was only with the 2am forecast and the revised trackline which had the storm crossing Lake Superior during the mid-morning and early afternoon, that the Fitzgerald changed course to be closer to the Canadian shoreline, because of the projected storm force winds from the west-northwest after passage of the cold front.

I highly doubt the Edmund Fitzgerald would have changed course to seek shelter in Thunder Bay. To do so would have meant being in a beam sea during the course change, and the Fitzgerald was known to roll. The highest winds she recorded for the National Weather Service (she was a National Weather Service cooperating vessel) was 52-knots from the northeast during the early morning hours of November 10, 1975.

In January 1975, on the 12th, the Edmund Fitzgerald recorded winds of 50-knots in northern Lake Huron. On July 25, 1975 at 0600 she measured 56-knot winds near Alpena, Michigan on Lake Huron and 48-knots over Whitefish Bay on the same day at 1800.

So for the Fitz, having encountered 50+ knot winds, as she encountered earlier in her last trip on Lake Superior, was not that unusual for the ship and crew and it's only with hindsight (which we have the benefit of and the crew of the Edmund Fitzgerald didn't) and we knowing how intense that storm would become that they should have sought shelter, but the crew not realizing that until the mid-afternoon of November 10th would have continued on their trip regardless; by then Whitefish Bay would have been the place to take shelter.

A list of ship observations by National Weather Service cooperating vesels for November 10, 1975. (Data taken from the May 1976 Mariners Weather Log)

Lake Superior
Cason J. Callaway - 48 knots, waves 18-feet
Philip R. Clarke - 42 knots, waves 13 feet
John Sherwin - 40 knots, waves 12 feet
Arthur M. Anderson - 50 knots, waves 16 feet. (7:00pm)

Lake Michigan
Frank Armstrong - 40 knots, waves 10 feet

Lake Huron
John Dykstra - 60 knots, waves 15 feet
Middletown - 50 knots, waves 16 feet
J. Burton Ayers - 46 knots, waves 20 feet

[Scott]

Part of the tragedy of the Fitzgerald was that they did not have the luxory of modern weather forcasting. The NWS issued gale warnings the afternoon of November 10? Yet there were still ships out on the lake. I realize that things are different these days, but we've definately learned from a few mistakes in the past.

[Guest]

After taking on a list should the Fitz have just come to a stop and waited for the Anderson? Was that possible to do in those seas? And when the Anderson caught up was getting all the men off the Fitz even possible in that storm?

[Darryl]

The Fitzgerald and the Anderson were in the middle of the Lake. They did not hug the North Shore. If they would have turned to port and headed to Thunder Bay, they would have had, depending on their speed, maybe 5-6 hours of abeam seas caused by those Northeast winds.

But the truth of the matter (later in their journey) "They WERE NOT holding their own." Besides their cargo, they were carrying thousands of tons of water. The reason I speculated about a watchman making his rounds and checking ballast tanks (which should be dry) and for cracks or indications of stress on the hull, was to address the fact that the boat was sinking. And the officers and crew knew it. He must have felt like he was out of options and just continued steaming South. With hindsight it is easy to say they should have done something different, that what they were doing wasn't going to work in the end. But he didn't.

In reading the report about the El Faro, they had access to a bridge voice recorder. It sounded like a number of crew did question the decisions of the captain. We don't have the luxury of a voice recording for the Fitzgerald. But they too, may have discussed other contingencies - right up to the casualty. Twenty-nine sailors shouldn't have died.

[Guest]

Depends on the charter agreement. Northwestern Mutual was owner of the ship but Oglebay Norton was the manager and may have been responsible for the upkeep of the ship. Then they probably would have been liable. That and they manned the vessel so if she went down and they lost crew they were already going to have some things to work out with liability.

What I was getting at is that the guy in the video is claiming that the alleged finding of hull paint on 6 Fathom Shoal was hushed because it would make the company liable. I'm saying that that statement makes no sense.

[Bob]

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

[Jon Paul]

Having been an AB watchman in the 70's I can tell you that it was standard procedure during bad weather for the watchman to monitor the ballast tank gauges in the tunnels or sound them. Making sure all companionway doors are secure and reporting anything out of the ordinary. If the hull breach was mostly confined to the bottom of the hull the only way to really tell would be by the ballast tanks flooding or doing a visual of the cargo hold itself.

[Guest]

No matter what caused the sinking or who caused the sinking, the owner and/or the operator cannot be held liable for more than the value of the vessel and its earned income from the cargo on board. This is a basic rule under Admiralty Law. Since they settled for more than the value of the ship and earned income of the cargo onboard, they cannot be held more liable.

[Darryl]

It is known that no one would be on deck during the last remaining watches on the Fitzgerald. But one would think that either the watchman or the mate or both, would have been making rounds in the starboard and port weather tunnels. I'd presume the captain had information from these checks, and possibly could have had important knowledge of what was going on with the structure of the ship. Leakage and hull stress could be apparent. If so, he may have had options other than making a beeline for Whitefish.

[Denny]

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!

[Guest]

The shoal area does exist.

From the NTSB Report:

“Canadian Hydrographic Service Chart 2310 shows this shoal area known as North Bank in considerably more detail than does Lakes Survey Chart No. 9 and the bottom contour lines were confirmed by the 1976 Canadian Hydrographic Service survey of the area. No isolated spots of shoal water were located, and all soundings of less than 10 fathoms fell within the 10 fathom curve shown on Canadian Chart 2310.”

“The Canadian Hydrographic Service survey shows that the water depth at this charted “6-fathom spot” is 52 meters (28.4 fathoms). . .Furthermore, the position of the charted “6-fathom spot” is more than 5 miles west of the Fitzgerald’s 1520 position testified to by the Anderson’s mate and her 1540 position testified to by the Anderson’s master.”

It wasn’t 6-fathoms, and the Fitzgerald wasn’t there.

Ya well according to Anderson Captain Bernie Cooper who was there the Fitz was over the shoal area.

And wasn't it the NTSB that concluded loose hatch clamps caused the Fitz to sink?

[Scott]

I've always believed that the Fitz struck bottom, which resulted in the blown vents and downed fence rails. Most of the information I've seen over the years is that in order for the ships vents to receive that much damage, that the ship had to have bottomed out. Add to this the fact that the Fitz reported taking on a list after traveling through the shoal area. I believe that a investigation into the shoal area would lead to the smoking gun, but that's just my opinion.

[Guest]

How would Oglebay be held any more liable due to grounding than for any other reason.. particularly if the loose keel mentioned by Burgner were true? If anything, it would favor Oglebay Norton as it would be a navigation error vs. a faulty vessel.

Depends on the charter agreement. Northwestern Mutual was owner of the ship but Oglebay Norton was the manager and may have been responsible for the upkeep of the ship. Then they probably would have been liable. That and they manned the vessel so if she went down and they lost crew they were already going to have some things to work out with liability.

[Guest]

How would Oglebay be held any more liable due to grounding than for any other reason... particularly if the loose keel mentioned by Burgner were true? If anything, it would favor Oglebay Norton as it would be a navigation error vs. a faulty vessel.

[Guest]

The shoal area does exist.

From the NTSB Report:

“Canadian Hydrographic Service Chart 2310 shows this shoal area known as North Bank in considerably more detail than does Lakes Survey Chart No. 9 and the bottom contour lines were confirmed by the 1976 Canadian Hydrographic Service survey of the area. No isolated spots of shoal water were located, and all soundings of less than 10 fathoms fell within the 10 fathom curve shown on Canadian Chart 2310.”

“The Canadian Hydrographic Service survey shows that the water depth at this charted “6-fathom spot” is 52 meters (28.4 fathoms). . .Furthermore, the position of the charted “6-fathom spot” is more than 5 miles west of the Fitzgerald’s 1520 position testified to by the Anderson’s mate and her 1540 position testified to by the Anderson’s master.”

It wasn’t 6-fathoms, and the Fitzgerald wasn’t there.

So many conflicting reports on the shoal area it's size and the water depth i just don't know what is fact and what is misinformation.

[Guest]

I attended Michigan Tech starting in 1979. The link below is to one of the professor's I had, he believed they struck bottom as well. They had researched and dove the area finding rivets etc from a strike. Was never proven, but the theory goes back this far.

http://www.me.mtu.edu/emeriti/hainault/index.html

[Guest]

The shoal area does exist.

From the NTSB Report:

“Canadian Hydrographic Service Chart 2310 shows this shoal area known as North Bank in considerably more detail than does Lakes Survey Chart No. 9 and the bottom contour lines were confirmed by the 1976 Canadian Hydrographic Service survey of the area. No isolated spots of shoal water were located, and all soundings of less than 10 fathoms fell within the 10 fathom curve shown on Canadian Chart 2310.”

“The Canadian Hydrographic Service survey shows that the water depth at this charted “6-fathom spot” is 52 meters (28.4 fathoms). . .Furthermore, the position of the charted “6-fathom spot” is more than 5 miles west of the Fitzgerald’s 1520 position testified to by the Anderson’s mate and her 1540 position testified to by the Anderson’s master.”

It wasn’t 6-fathoms, and the Fitzgerald wasn’t there.

[Denny]

Hi here you Dawn and know what you mean. To be honest and I hate to say it but, my interest in the Fitz and other Shipwrecks just isn’t what it used to be anymore! When my Mom was alive, I had a TV and DVD player in my room that I could watch them on. After my Mom passed away, my brother decided to save money he took away my cable TV and now my DVD player don’t work the same as it once did. I can still play and watch them but, now the sound is horrible with a scratching like sound yet I have a VHS player with it too. So far so good at least for now with that. Point is, the only way now I can watch any DVDs is on my computer screen which for an hour or more I figure the time just isn’t worth it as it’s too hard on my back and stuff. Just a shame I can’t watch them like I used to do. Now they just sit and collect dust. I am glad to hear that you and your son Michael got to see the museums you wanted to see. Believe it or not, I’ve still yet to get down to Toledo to see the National Museum! Someday I’d like to go and see that one and the one up at Rogers City as I’ve never been to that one and so badly want to see the Bradley bell. Was hoping to meet Frank Mays before he passed away! Glad I got to meet Dennis Hale before he passed away!

[Dawn]

... I'm sure you probably knew Dawn the Fitz was once chartered to ON but may have forgotten about it which is understandable.

Actually, I was living in Oklahoma at the time, and didn't know much more than a freighter sank during a major storm on Lake Superior. When my late son, Michael, and I took a trip on Badger (2003) he was astonished to learn that the wreck had been found and the bell retrieved. From that discovery, my vacation plans were scuttled and we visited every maritime museum from Door County to Whitefish Point! That said, I still dont have the fascination so many have for the Fitz.