Arthur B Homer

[hugh3]

Well Andrew what you say is the general consciences but the US Coast Guard wanted to blame it all on loose hatches and no seaman from that era will go along with that...

[Guest]

Red Burgner's claim was not related to the keelsons but instead with the keel.

According to Red Burgner the keel was not properly welded to the hull plates, and that when the shipyard built the Fitz there was a gap between the keel and hull plates, and that the shipyard stuffed the gap with welding rods, then welded over the area to cover up the gap. I know it sounds completely bizarre and off the wall, but Red Burgner started making this claim about a month after the Fitz's sinking.

I have his deposition he gave in early 1977 on a CDROM from the late 1990s, but I will have to go through some boxes to find it. If/when I find it, I will post it to this thread.

- Brian

[Guest]

Her keelson repair was standard procedure for that sort of wear and tear and wasn't the first time it's been done. A much bigger deal was made of it than it really was.

I agree! A lot has been made about this along with the minor accidents the Fitzgerald had during its career as evidence the ship was defective in construction or overly abused in some manner. Historically, Great Lakes ships are pushed hard to move as much cargo in as few trips as possible and I doubt the Fitzgerald had sustained much more wear and tear than its contemporaries of that timeframe, several of which are still in operation today. I have always doubted the loose keel claims as likely being an exaggeration. Due to its usual trade routes, the Edmund Fitzgerald was likely exposed to much less punishment than many other lake freighters of that day. Working ships require constant maintenance and repair from damage sustained during the course of normal operation and I would tend to believe that the work the Fitzgerald required during the years leading up to its sinking was comparable to any other ship engaged in similar operational patterns. Perhaps a comparison between the maintenance histories of the Armco and Reserve up to the middle 1970s would bear this out.

[Guest]

As a long term Great Lakes sailor on both Fitzgerald vintage vessels plus many older and newer year vessels, it’s difficult to make such a blanket statement as to ship condition in relation to its type or time period of its construction, except the early maritime boats that had to be strengthened due to a design flaw or incorrect steel composition causing serious spar deck cracking. I was on the Fitz as relief AB for a few weeks in 1974. The hull had a peculiar spring to it in certain seas that I never experienced on any other vessel I crewed. I in no way suggest this springing was a cause of its sinking. It’s just my first hand observation. There was no ONE reason for its demise. It was a series of conditions n decisions made over time leading up to that fateful night. There was plenty of blame to go around from ON, us coast guard , old outdated charts n depth surveys, design construction, deferred repairs n maintenance and yes to the decision to go “ down the lake” that day, that led to her sinking. Luckily the captain of my ship went to anchor. No matter what, the buck stops with the vessel master. Only the deceased crew knows what happened but truth is they didn’t have to be out in that storm. Just my opinion.

[MarcE]

I'd second what Duluth Guest said. Though I'm not an expert and am just a fairly young casual boatwatcher, to think that the Fitzgerald's problems that she had with her keel had to do with the sinking are likely people making mountains out of molehills. The reason I have serious doubts about the Fitz's keel being in terrible shape and that it caused catastrophic hull failure would essentially go against everything currently happening on the lakes today. The era and yard she was built in did not seem to struggle with these issues, and the ships of her era continue to sail on the great lakes today. Were keel issues from hauling too much cargo such an important and catastrophic issue, none of the ships of her era would have survived 70 or more seasons. I'd also venture that vessels today are neglected far more than ships were in the 70s.

Red Burgener seemed to have a bone to pick with Oglebay Norton, so not saying that he lied, but he may have exaggerated issues that were fairly common. I'll also say that because ON tried to avoid any sort of lawsuit, Coast Guard having a poor response that day and having inspected the ship recently, and so forth, a lot of fingers were being pointed at those two organizations, and the findings and loss of the vessel were reflected in a way to make sure that neither of these two agencies were to blame.

In the end, it was nobody's fault- it was a storm that got out of hand and likely a shoaling by the Fitzgerald that led to a perfect storm of circumstances. I don't think the Coast Guard, ON, or McSorley were at fault. I think people trying to find blame or hide responsibility is ridiculous- because there just isn't much out there to support those claims.

Im not sure I would take the word of the steward(red). His mechanical knowledge was probably limited and his motives are unclear.
Im no expert but i have sailed on 8 different US freighters and very discreetly asked as many opinions about the Fitz as I could. Its not a topic you wanted to bring up without being labled a boatnerd(yikes).
Most of the opinions were they hit Caribou or just a simple I dont know. Nobody thought they broke in half on the surface. I talked to men who used to sail on The Fitz and they never mentioned an issue with the keel.
One question has always bothered me. Freighters are usually loaded a little more heavy in the stern. I cannot see any visible evidence of any shoaling damage. I know wave dynamics lifting the ship might be the reason (might).
My very personal opinion is the forward ballast tank vent or vents were stripped off the deck and with the loaded vessel weighed down by 26,011 tons(a very large amount)and the forward tanks flooded, ill subscribe to the "3 sisters" delivering the death blow.
"Dont let anybody out on deck". That is a mystery to me.

Coincidentally the local AZ radio station literally just announced a billion dollar prize if they ever play "The Wreck of The Edmund Fitzgerald,".
Take care evryone. Its been awhile.

[Andrew]

I'd second what Duluth Guest said. Though I'm not an expert and am just a fairly young casual boatwatcher, to think that the Fitzgerald's problems that she had with her keel had to do with the sinking are likely people making mountains out of molehills. The reason I have serious doubts about the Fitz's keel being in terrible shape and that it caused catastrophic hull failure would essentially go against everything currently happening on the lakes today. The era and yard she was built in did not seem to struggle with these issues, and the ships of her era continue to sail on the great lakes today. Were keel issues from hauling too much cargo such an important and catastrophic issue, none of the ships of her era would have survived 70 or more seasons. I'd also venture that vessels today are neglected far more than ships were in the 70s.

Red Burgener seemed to have a bone to pick with Oglebay Norton, so not saying that he lied, but he may have exaggerated issues that were fairly common. I'll also say that because ON tried to avoid any sort of lawsuit, Coast Guard having a poor response that day and having inspected the ship recently, and so forth, a lot of fingers were being pointed at those two organizations, and the findings and loss of the vessel were reflected in a way to make sure that neither of these two agencies were to blame.

In the end, it was nobody's fault- it was a storm that got out of hand and likely a shoaling by the Fitzgerald that led to a perfect storm of circumstances. I don't think the Coast Guard, ON, or McSorley were at fault. I think people trying to find blame or hide responsibility is ridiculous- because there just isn't much out there to support those claims.

[Duluth Guest]

Her keelson repair was standard procedure for that sort of wear and tear and wasn't the first time it's been done. A much bigger deal was made of it than it really was.

[Guest]

Didn't the supposed Edmund Fitzgerald structural problems begin with the assertions made by the ship's cook/shipkeeper?

The issue with the keelsons cracking from the hull plates were well known about and repairs were made in the five-year drydocking at AmShip Lorain during January-April 1974. You can get the drawings for that repair from the Fraser Shipyard Collection at the University of Wisconsin - Superior ( https://frasershipyardscollection.omeka ... /show/8096. )

The cook, Red Burgner was the Fitzgerald's cook and ship keeper. He had been unwell with bone spurs in his heel when the Fitzgerald sank.

Issues with the keel became public in December 1975 in Duluth area newspapers and were mentioned in an article in an AMO newsletter in December 1976.

- Brian

Is this type of problem common to lake freighters or is the Fitzgerald the only one known to have such issues?

[Guest]

Didn't the supposed Edmund Fitzgerald structural problems begin with the assertions made by the ship's cook/shipkeeper?

The issue with the keelsons cracking from the hull plates were well known about and repairs were made in the five-year drydocking at AmShip Lorain during January-April 1974. You can get the drawings for that repair from the Fraser Shipyard Collection at the University of Wisconsin - Superior ( https://frasershipyardscollection.omeka ... /show/8096. )

The cook, Red Burgner was the Fitzgerald's cook and ship keeper. He had been unwell with bone spurs in his heel when the Fitzgerald sank.

Issues with the keel became public in December 1975 in Duluth area newspapers and were mentioned in an article in an AMO newsletter in December 1976.

- Brian

[Guest]

Didn't the supposed Edmund Fitzgerald structural problems begin with the assertions made by the ship's cook/shipkeeper?

[hausen]

It can also be noted that people associated with the scrap operation at Port Colborne have said that the Arthur B. Homer was far and away in the best condition of any ship they ever dismantled. Seems unlikely that the Homer would have stood out to them as being in especially great shape if she really had the type of structural/hull issues that are often speculated about in association with speculation about Edmund Fitzgerald.

[Andrew]

I would agree on Paquette's book being more of an autobiography than the story of the Edmund Fitzgerald. I was expecting more of an objective historical read like Stonehouse. That said, the book was enjoyable, and it was very interesting to get a first hand account of one of the captains who was out there that night. But, in many cases, while I respect his opinion, some of his views are just that- opinions that I don't believe really hold a lot of credence. He does seem to have a general distrust of most people, especially corporate execs, which I can understand to a degree because of bad encounters he had during his time as a captain. But I would argue that much of what he has is circumstantial evidence which he seems to have a tendency to read too far into.

[Guest]

This thread is liable to generate quite a bit of conversation, because there are plenty of rumors as to why.

The truth: the Arthur B. Homer was just another casualty of the downturn of the 80s, especially in the wake of Bethlehem owning three new 1000 footers. In fact, Bethlehem was originally going to have a fourth, but because of the 80s downturn, it didn't happen. Many of the casualties of the 80s were old, outdated ships that were being replaced by the 1000 footers, but some, like the William Clay Ford, George M. Humphrey, and Arthur B. Homer were scrapped because their owners were not in a good economic situation. Had they been converted to self-unloaders, chances are much higher that they would have been sold to other companies, but other companies didn't want the financial burden of having to convert them.

The rumor mill: Dudley Paquette and a number of people in the know, including some people who supposedly had ties to Fraser and the NTSB claimed that the vessel was not seaworthy and had some structural issues. Paquette's supposed proof of this was that the president of NTSB, who rode along on the Edward L. Ryerson when he was captain, told Dudley that he had requested to take a trip on the Homer and was denied by Bethlehem. Further supposed "proof" is that the Homer is the sister to the Fitz, and that she was structurally unsound. Claims made about the Fitz were naturally made about the Homer after the sinking- frankly, many people I believe made too much of the connection of the Morrell and Townsend and applied it to the Homer and Fitz. Since Paquette argues a stress fracture sank the vessel, the claim is that the keel and hull plating being erroneous is a key part of the argument. Logically, then, one would assume the same of the Homer. Certain people even go farther and claim that Oglebay Norton and other execs wanted to make sure the Homer never got examined and that's why she was mothballed and eventually scrapped. The size of the vessel at the time of scrapping- 826 feet- is what people think is odd. People argue that the vessel was too big to logically be scrapped (even though there was talk of footers and the Blough going to scrap during this time!).

I don't buy any of the rumors. I think it was just a classic case of a fleet that couldn't afford to run her anymore, and yet another example of a vessel gone well before her time. Any connection to the Fitz is simply that they were sisters. Despite what people say about the Fitz, the issues she had, while not common, did occur from time to time, and she was the workhorse of the fleet, so wear and tear was expected. I don't think a 17 year old ship sinks because she's already starting to fall apart, especially when we have ships four times her age still plying the lakes with no issues.

I read "The Night the Fitz Went Down" several years ago and found it an enjoyable read although it seems it could have been more aptly named "The Dudley Paquette Story." I believe that this individual passed away some years ago, so I will make every effort to not overly criticize any of the points made in the book as he is not here to offer a rebuttal. That being said, the apparent denial by Bethlehem to allow the NTSB president to take a trip on the Arthur B. Homer as proof there was some issue common to the two ships with no supporting engineering evidence is very thin. I'm certain if the NTSB had any reason to believe that a problem existed it could have certainly been allowed to have its investigators observe the vessel in an operational condition. I cannot clearly remember this part of the book, so I guess it's time to pull it off the shelf on the next rainy day. It amazes me how the Fitzgerald/Homer link has taken on a life of its own over the past several years. If the economic downturn of the 1980s had been only temporary and the ship was still sailing today, would such a link ever have been made? The pure simple fact of the matter is that economics led to the Arthur B. Homer being scrapped and not some sinister plot to hide evidence that wasn't there to start with.

[Guest]

I spent three years on the Homer. There was not a thing wrong with her. The winter of 77 we came down from Tac Hbr in a storm comparable to the 75 storm, all the engineers were sitting in the galley in their Gumby suits and we made it just fine. The difference was we went down the LCA course not beach combing. The only damage she suffered was a grounding in Jan 79 at the lay up dock when the old man did not pump her out and the 80 incident at Tac Hbr. Both were repaired at Fraser. If they hadn't broken her up I would still be on her.

[guest]

when the homer was being scrapped in port colborne some one painted on her hull "730s your next"

[Andrew]

This thread is liable to generate quite a bit of conversation, because there are plenty of rumors as to why.

The truth: the Arthur B. Homer was just another casualty of the downturn of the 80s, especially in the wake of Bethlehem owning three new 1000 footers. In fact, Bethlehem was originally going to have a fourth, but because of the 80s downturn, it didn't happen. Many of the casualties of the 80s were old, outdated ships that were being replaced by the 1000 footers, but some, like the William Clay Ford, George M. Humphrey, and Arthur B. Homer were scrapped because their owners were not in a good economic situation. Had they been converted to self-unloaders, chances are much higher that they would have been sold to other companies, but other companies didn't want the financial burden of having to convert them.

The rumor mill: Dudley Paquette and a number of people in the know, including some people who supposedly had ties to Fraser and the NTSB claimed that the vessel was not seaworthy and had some structural issues. Paquette's supposed proof of this was that the president of NTSB, who rode along on the Edward L. Ryerson when he was captain, told Dudley that he had requested to take a trip on the Homer and was denied by Bethlehem. Further supposed "proof" is that the Homer is the sister to the Fitz, and that she was structurally unsound. Claims made about the Fitz were naturally made about the Homer after the sinking- frankly, many people I believe made too much of the connection of the Morrell and Townsend and applied it to the Homer and Fitz. Since Paquette argues a stress fracture sank the vessel, the claim is that the keel and hull plating being erroneous is a key part of the argument. Logically, then, one would assume the same of the Homer. Certain people even go farther and claim that Oglebay Norton and other execs wanted to make sure the Homer never got examined and that's why she was mothballed and eventually scrapped. The size of the vessel at the time of scrapping- 826 feet- is what people think is odd. People argue that the vessel was too big to logically be scrapped (even though there was talk of footers and the Blough going to scrap during this time!).

I don't buy any of the rumors. I think it was just a classic case of a fleet that couldn't afford to run her anymore, and yet another example of a vessel gone well before her time. Any connection to the Fitz is simply that they were sisters. Despite what people say about the Fitz, the issues she had, while not common, did occur from time to time, and she was the workhorse of the fleet, so wear and tear was expected. I don't think a 17 year old ship sinks because she's already starting to fall apart, especially when we have ships four times her age still plying the lakes with no issues.

[Guest]

The Arthur B. Homer became excess tonnage to Bethlehem Steel after the Burns Harbor entered service in September 1980. She did not operate thereafter and the closing of Bethlehem Steel's Lackawanna steel mill sealed her fate.

- Brian

[Guest]

You are likely to have some posters trying to connect the Homer's very brief career to the sinking of the similar Edmund Fitzgerald in 1976 in that there was some type of design flaw, etc. In truth, the simple fact is that the economics of the 1980s brought this vessel's service life to an end. By the time the Homer was laid up in October of 1980, Bethlehem had three thousand-foot vessels and the recently converted Sparrows Point in service and these were more than sufficient to meet its needs. Although lengthened in 1975, the Homer's lack of self-unloading gear made it unsuitable to be sold to another fleet, which given the poor economic conditions at the time would have been unlikely in any case. While these reasons alone explain the Homer's brief career, many will still argue it still has something to do with the Fitzgerald. What I find interesting about this supposed connection is the fact that this conjecture seems to have first surfaced during the early 2000s and has since taken a life of its own. Incidentally, this is when Internet access was becoming more widely used by the general public. Having come from the era in which the Fitzgerald was lost, I don't recall any mention of the Fitzgerald connection back when the Homer was actually retired and sold for scrap as the reasons for this were quite obvious. I suppose a lot of people like to find conspiracies!

[Jared]

She was not a self unloader and and too long to fit through the seaway was the part of it. The other was Bethlehem Steel going bankrupt. There was too much excess capacity to choose from with dozens of other boats on the wall.

[Grey Beard]

Why was the A B H scrapped at such a young age.