Anderson on Lake Superior November 10

[Guest]

At testimony at the USCG Marine Board of Inquiry, Capt. Zabinski mentioned the Fitzgerald going to the Inland Steel dock in Indiana Harbor a couple of times in 1975 (I recall reading somewhere that the Fitzgerald unloaded at Inland Steel in early-August of 1975.)

Capt. Zabinski mentioned the damage that would occur to the hatch coamings and deck strake caused by the ore bridge buckets that were used at Great Lakes Steel in Zug Island and Inland Steel in Indiana Harbor.

[Guest]

I know a lot of Inlands ore came in by Misener ships from either Thunder bay or the Gulf.

[Guest]

The repairs to hatches 13, 15, 16 and 21 were not uncommon for straight-deck ore carriers. The Fitzgerald was in a trade (Huletts) that caused far less damage to the deck strake and hatch coamings then other docks that used ore bridges. Basically it just requires "v-ing" out the cracks and re-welding (hatch coamings) or even "crop and replace" (deck strakes), if needed. The damages could have occurred at either Inland Steel in Indiana Harbor, National Steel at Zug Island or both.

Did the Fitzgerald deliver ore to Inland Steel during the early 1970s? I know that Inland always contracted a portion of their seasonal tonnage requirements as its fleet could not handle the volume but I don't recall ever hearing about Columbia Transportation picking up any of this business during this timeframe. I may be wrong, however, as it has been a long time ago.

I believe they unloaded at Youngstown Sheet & Tube in Indiana Harbor.

[Guest]

The repairs to hatches 13, 15, 16 and 21 were not uncommon for straight-deck ore carriers. The Fitzgerald was in a trade (Huletts) that caused far less damage to the deck strake and hatch coamings then other docks that used ore bridges. Basically it just requires "v-ing" out the cracks and re-welding (hatch coamings) or even "crop and replace" (deck strakes), if needed. The damages could have occurred at either Inland Steel in Indiana Harbor, National Steel at Zug Island or both.

Did the Fitzgerald deliver ore to Inland Steel during the early 1970s? I know that Inland always contracted a portion of their seasonal tonnage requirements as its fleet could not handle the volume but I don't recall ever hearing about Columbia Transportation picking up any of this business during this timeframe. I may be wrong, however, as it has been a long time ago.

[Guest]

The repairs to hatches 13, 15, 16 and 21 were not uncommon for straight-deck ore carriers. The Fitzgerald was in a trade (Huletts) that caused far less damage to the deck strake and hatch coamings then other docks that used ore bridges. Basically it just requires "v-ing" out the cracks and re-welding (hatch coamings) or even "crop and replace" (deck strakes), if needed. The damages could have occurred at either Inland Steel in Indiana Harbor, National Steel at Zug Island or both.

[Guest]

I'm also puzzled by a remark McSorely made to the pilot I believe it was on the salty Avafors that night. At one point McSorely was to be heard saying off mike "Don't Allow Anyone On Deck!" So what I am trying to ask and figure out is what happened on deck that he would tell that to his crew and officers? I know about the details as far as the fence rain down, vents lost or damaged and that he had taken on a list all of that stuff. However, besides what I mentioned was there some other topside damage or something that crashed or hit their deck as to why McSorely would say that? Just curious!

They would have been taking water over the spar deck. As it was, they were taking water over the lifeboat deck. Waves were upwards of 25 footers from trough to crest and the Fitz only had 11 feet of freeboard at the time the way she was loaded.

[Guest]

We can just speculate on what happened. Seeing none of us were there it's all a guess.

[Denny]

I'm also puzzled by a remark McSorely made to the pilot I believe it was on the salty Avafors that night. At one point McSorely was to be heard saying off mike "Don't Allow Anyone On Deck!" So what I am trying to ask and figure out is what happened on deck that he would tell that to his crew and officers? I know about the details as far as the fence rain down, vents lost or damaged and that he had taken on a list all of that stuff. However, besides what I mentioned was there some other topside damage or something that crashed or hit their deck as to why McSorely would say that? Just curious!

[Scott]

One thing that has had me wondering over the years since that night is a comment from Captain McSorely. In one of the books I read he said of the Fitz, "Oh, this thing (The Fitz) sometimes scares me." Not sure how accurate this report is however.

[Denny]

Wasn’t the Fitz due to lay-up I thought I heard in Cleveland had she not went down and sunk? If that’s true, then when would she have gone to Fraser in Superior for the repairs that some are talking about? I assume it would’ve been sometime during 1976 unless instead they were due to lay-up in Superior at Fraser instead of Cleveland. Just curious is all here. Any information is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[hugh3]

If Fraser had steel ordered, received and marked in the yard for use on the Fritz, it was for some repairs already known. So the welding on the spar deck was just another repair noted and scheduled over and above the already scheduled shipyard repairs. Too bad the list of repairs to be preformed at the next repair period is not available. A lot of records have been stored at different institutions over the years.

[Guest]

The Edmund Fitzgerald had discrepancies in hatch 13, 15, 16 and 21 that were found during her Spar Deck Inspection in Toledo on October 31, 1975:

Hatch 13 had a gouge on the inboard edge of the spar deck stringer on the port side of the hatch opening.

Hatch 15 had a gouge, less than 1-inch in depth on the inboard edge of the inner deck stringer on the port side.

Hatch 16 had an indentation and crack on the port hatch end girder. The USCG inspector said the crack was 8-10 inches in length, the ABS inspector said it was 1-inch in length.

Hatch 21 had a crack in the weld at the intersection of the hatch coaming and the hatch end girder on the starboard side aft.

[Denny]

The Fitzgerald’s last and final spar deck inspection was conducted on October 31, 1975 while she was in Toledo, Ohio. To my understanding on what I’ve read and seen and heard in my DVD videos about that one is, they found cracks I think in her deck or something to that effect and Yes the USCG requested them to make repairs prior to the start and the opening of the 1976 shipping season. As we know all too well though, unfortunately those repairs would never be made to her. Hope that this is what you’re looking for and answers your questions.

[Guest]

Seems to me I read/heard that there was a quantity of steel bought and waiting to be used on her at layup. Think that was in the same discussion about keel problems.

I think that the Fitzgerald supposed pending lengthening at Fraser Shipyard and the even more questionable keel problems are two of the best circulated "urban myths" of the Great Lakes boat watching community. As far as I have seen, neither has ever been substantiated with actual unquestionable proof. As for the apparent sightings of steel marked with the Fitzgerald name at Frasers, this may have been simply been slated for some steel work repairs if it did in fact exist. I seem to recall that the loose keel accusations originated with the ship's cook. Here too, I question the validity of such allegations. If the ship was in such a poor condition, why did he continue to sail upon it and only by chance not be on the ship on its final voyage? I'm not doubting that maybe he had learned something while being a shipkeeper on the ship but there still is the question of proof to back up the loose keel theory. How long could a ship have operated in such a condition and why would its crew and owner allow it to do so? Seems like it would have been hard to keep such a fact quiet and there would have likely been a considerable amount of turnover in the crew if such a problem did exist.

The SS Marine Electric was in worse condition and that was known to the office, the crew, and anyone who stepped foot on her deck. She continued to sail with deadly consequences for her crew. Never underestimate the power of a company to sway ABS/USCG with *promises* to make repairs or upgrade equipment.

It is a business and if you think, for one minute, the office does not make decisions based on cost, you are not living in the real world. The best moments are when SMS is used to explain to shoreside why you can't leave a dock or wave a stack of email/phone logs detailing safety concerns.

Wasn't the Fitzgerald scheduled for some repairs during the 1975/76 layup that had been delayed from during a USSCG inspection during the 1975 season? I might be wrong.

[Guest]

Seems to me I read/heard that there was a quantity of steel bought and waiting to be used on her at layup. Think that was in the same discussion about keel problems.

I think that the Fitzgerald supposed pending lengthening at Fraser Shipyard and the even more questionable keel problems are two of the best circulated "urban myths" of the Great Lakes boat watching community. As far as I have seen, neither has ever been substantiated with actual unquestionable proof. As for the apparent sightings of steel marked with the Fitzgerald name at Frasers, this may have been simply been slated for some steel work repairs if it did in fact exist. I seem to recall that the loose keel accusations originated with the ship's cook. Here too, I question the validity of such allegations. If the ship was in such a poor condition, why did he continue to sail upon it and only by chance not be on the ship on its final voyage? I'm not doubting that maybe he had learned something while being a shipkeeper on the ship but there still is the question of proof to back up the loose keel theory. How long could a ship have operated in such a condition and why would its crew and owner allow it to do so? Seems like it would have been hard to keep such a fact quiet and there would have likely been a considerable amount of turnover in the crew if such a problem did exist.

The SS Marine Electric was in worse condition and that was known to the office, the crew, and anyone who stepped foot on her deck. She continued to sail with deadly consequences for her crew. Never underestimate the power of a company to sway ABS/USCG with *promises* to make repairs or upgrade equipment.

It is a business and if you think, for one minute, the office does not make decisions based on cost, you are not living in the real world. The best moments are when SMS is used to explain to shoreside why you can't leave a dock or wave a stack of email/phone logs detailing safety concerns.

[Ray]

The Star Tribune article on Red Burgner can be found at
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/2614457 ... eposition/

Looks like the article was Nov 10, 1997. Interesting article more in the sense of some of the other names involved at the time promoting what he had to say and who contradicts him.

One detail in the article not related to Mr. Burgner that I had not heard before was the estimate by the Board of Inquiry that the Fitzgerald hit the bottom at 35 mph. That is some pretty amazing acceleration in 500 feet, indicating she truly did sink like a rock.

[Guest]

Red Burgner gave a deposition in a court for the family members in 1976. His deposition was printed in the Star Tribune in the late 1990s or early 2000s. I have a copy of the deposition on one of my CD-ROMs that I have to look for.

From what I remember from the article in the Star Tribune, lawyers for Oglebay-Norton were trying to find Red Burgner and keep him from testifying at the Marine Board of Inquiry.

Author Fred Stonehouse said that after reading Red Burgner's testimony, it sounded like Burgner had an axe to grind with McSorley.

If or when I find the deposition, I will post it here.

Issues with the keelsons are well known, and in fact one can order the drawings of the repairs done to the keelsons from the University of Wisconsin-Superior's Fraser Shipyard Collection.

[gwkangas]

Mcsorely talked about the ship doing a wiggly thing in rough weather.

[Guest]

I think where the myth of the Edmund Fitzgerald being lengthened over the Winter of 1975-76 comes from the testimony of Mr. Richard Stearn of the design firm R. A. Stearn at the USCG Marine Board of Inquiry in 1976 after the Fitz sinking.

R.A. Stearn was the company that did the design work and contract proposal for the lengthening of the Arthur B. Homer - the Fitz's near-sister in 1974. Fraser Shipyard then proposed a similar lengthening to Oglebay-Norton for the Edmund Fitzgerald using the same drawings and calculations of the Arthur B. Homer lengthening. But NO contract was ever signed for such a lengthening between Fraser Shipyard and Oglebay-Norton. It was just a proposal and nothing more.

[Bigboat]

The Fitzgerald was never lengthened. The Anderson was lengthened in the spring of 1975.

You are correct. I thought that sounded odd.