New Edmund Fitzgerald Depiction Touching Six Fathom Shoal

[Alex]

This topic stirs up emotions. The dismissal of the NTSB and USCG in this case is toward their conclusion of placing blame squarely on the crew for unsecured hatch clamps, which in itself cannot be proven and a slap to the faces of the perished. It was puzzling that the USCG had such a large say in the investigation and conclusion since they didn't have any resource for search and rescue available at all, depending solely on other freighters to do it. As for how the Fitz is laying, most likely from nose diving. The bow being plowed into the bottom, some of the midsection crunched to pieces as the forward motion continued collapsing areas of the hull that were damaged and weak, and the stern got turned upside down from the torque of the propeller still turning.

[Guest]

Fitz traveled over shoal area.
List and fence rails down reported right after.
Rogue waves that hit Anderson drove Fitz's bow under.
Thus no time for mayday call from bridge.

Only factor i am uncertain of is how and when exactly did the ship break in two with the stern section ending up upside down on the lake bottom?

[Guest]

One of the primary problems I have seen associated with the Edmund Fitzgerald sinking is that the vast majority people have closed their minds by settling on one particular theory and have no room for any dissention to that position. That is possibly the worst possible viewpoints to have with any accident of this type. Every one of the logical theories that have come to light concerning this sinking can be disputed in one form or another. To dismiss the findings of the USCG or NTSB, however, is to belittle the hard work made by investigators that were given the task of solving a catastrophic accident with virtually no physical evidence and no direct eyewitnesses to the actual sinking. That is not to say that these investigations were either entirely correct or incorrect in their findings. It seems like over the years most observers, the vast majority of whom have never either been involved in or have researched the investigative process, have concluded that the USCG and NTSB were totally incorrect in their conclusions. To dismiss these conclusions out of hand as one poster put less eloquently is an unfortunate viewpoint. I’m not saying the USCG and NTSB were right but I can tell you that I highly doubt they just dreamt something up to explain the sinking and that their conclusion was the best they could come up with given the evidence at hand. All official government accident reports are little more than a general summary of a complex process involving thousands of hours of work by professional investigators and likely thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of pages of data and testimony. It must be understood that the process usually operates in an environment burdened by the very real possibility of what has happened could happen again at any moment. The term “Probable Cause” is by its own definition open to reexamination and reinterpretation in the light of further evidence that may have been unavailable or misunderstood during the initial investigation. Probable cause should therefore be interpreted as the most likely, but not necessarily the actual cause of an accident. Although it would be highly unlikely in the Fitzgerald sinking as there is virtually no likelihood of new evidence emerging, the NTSB has revised their probable cause conclusions on several occasions in the past. At least this is true for aviation mishaps in which I have far more research experience.

As far as Captain Cooper being the “man on the spot” he was in fact some 20+ miles away observing the Fitzgerald on a radar screen when it apparently went into the shoal area. With that in mind, he and his crew were the nearest observers to the Fitzgerald actual track but can be in no way considered as being on the “spot” as the only people that were “on the spot” did not survive to tell about it. What was the performance and resolution capabilities of the Anderson’s radar in providing an accurate fix of a moving target at that range and in those sea conditions? How accurate were the Anderson’s radar sets and what was there calibration status at the time? Were the sets ever examined after the accident to rule out any performance issues? Additionally, since these radar sets were most likely configured to assist the a ship’s crew navigate their own vessel how well would they perform in tracking other targets in motion in relation to fixed landmasses? I’m not trying to say Captain Cooper is wrong in any way as he was a professional mariner and his opinion does carry the weight of many years of experience with both Great Lakes vessels and the weather they operate in. That said, however, he could also be incorrect in his assumptions and it is not logical to blindly accept his contention as to the Fitzgerald running over a shoal without other corroborating evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, one thing I have never seen mentioned about the Fitzgerald going into the shoaling area is why did McSorely with his years of experience allow his ship to be put into that position? From what I have read, he was just as experienced as Cooper so to accept the latter’s contention that the Fitzgerald ran over the shoaling area without question also means that it must also be equally accepted that McSorely allowed his own ship to be put into danger. That is a very unfortunate assumption and one that has no real preponderance of evidence.

The point I’m trying to make with all this rambling is that any such mystery should be viewed with an open mind especially in case in which there is a lack of physical evidence, direct eyewitnesses, or survivors to provide an insight into the actual sequence of events. From reading some of the comments on the internet concerning the sinking of the Edmund Fitzgerald I often wonder how many of these people were actually alive when the accident happened? It seems like there is an abundance of experts out there but that is nothing new as many authors have masqueraded themselves as experts of particular subjects without any academic or professional experience for probably as long as books have been written.

Has anyone seen the document “A Forensic Investigation Of The Breakup And Sinking Of The Great Lakes Iron Ore Carrier Edmund Fitzgerald, November 10th 1975, Using Modern Naval Architecture Tools And Techniques” research paper? Are there any opinions on the conclusions provided by this study?

Here is a link to this paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Techniques

[Scott]

I think Denny nails it on the head. Yes, the Fitz struck bottom on six fathom shoals. Yes, captain Cooper and his mate wondered aloud why the Fitz would be that close to a dangerous area. It was after this time over the shoals that the Fits began experiencing difficulty. I have often wondered what USCG pencil pusher couldn't see this obvious fact. Nevertheless, after leaving this area, the Fitz was in a race for survival. I believe that had the Fitzgerald followed the Andersons track that night, that she would have survived. The waves captain cooper experienced gave the Anderson difficulty, but she wasn't running low in the water as the Fitz was. By the time the waves reached the Fitzgerald, they poured over her stern deck and drove the bow into it's final dive to the bottom. A fact misrepresented by the USCG report.

[Guest]

When having conversations with old Skippers with 40+ yrs on the lakes a lot of that time before radar and they all said they believe she tore out her bottom I tend to agree with those gentlmen.

[Denny]

Agree with both you guys 100% as that has always been my theory as well as to how she went down and sank. However, and I must stress to everyone that its only my thoughts but besides the shoaling theory I also believe that one or two huge and large waves also drove her under at the very end to the point of no recovery. If you listen to Cooper and watch any and all DVD videos and read a few of the books, "Some have said that about 40-45 minutes before Anderson last contact to the Fitz that the Anderson was hit by two huge waves 35 foot towers of water as it is mentioned in my DVD videos came crashing down on the Anderson and that within a few minutes they would catch up to the Fitz. It is also been said in my DVD Videos that Cooper later testified to the Board after the sinking "YES, there were Rogue Waves out on Lake Superior the night the Fitz was lost." So, I add the shoaling theory and the Large Waves as well and that IMO anyway is what finally drove her to the bottom sad to say!

[Shipwatcher News]

In his taped interview, Capt. Cooper says something to the effect of "He was closer than I'd wanted to have been" with regards to the shoal. Sometimes someone like him has to be careful not to "call out" another Captain out of professional courtesy especially since there was a sinking involved. He wouldn't want to put undue stress on the families or cause any problems, but when I heard him say that, I thought to myself, what he really means is "they hit that shoal".
They were doing OK until they passed by it. How else could the ship have hogged & broke a fence rail? Why would she all of a sudden develop a list & have all her pumps going?
The ship hit the shoal & either had a stress fracture of the hull plating or suffered some other type of damage like when the Titanic hit the iceberg where the plates were bent & distressed enough that water began at that moment to enter the hull.

I completely agree. The Coast Guard and NTSB hearing conclusions were a complete pile of bulls*** with the "faulty hatch covers". I believe there was only one member of the USCG board hearing that actually had experience on and around the Great Lakes.

[wlbblw]

In his taped interview, Capt. Cooper says something to the effect of "He was closer than I'd wanted to have been" with regards to the shoal. Sometimes someone like him has to be careful not to "call out" another Captain out of professional courtesy especially since there was a sinking involved. He wouldn't want to put undue stress on the families or cause any problems, but when I heard him say that, I thought to myself, what he really means is "they hit that shoal".
They were doing OK until they passed by it. How else could the ship have hogged & broke a fence rail? Why would she all of a sudden develop a list & have all her pumps going?
The ship hit the shoal & either had a stress fracture of the hull plating or suffered some other type of damage like when the Titanic hit the iceberg where the plates were bent & distressed enough that water began at that moment to enter the hull.

[Guest]

Great work by artist Mark Karvon. I am firmly in the camp that the Fitz did in fact bottom out over the Six Fathom Shoal as Anderson Captain Bernie Cooper also theorized, and Capt. Cooper was there that night. Also right after passing through the shoal area is when the Fitz Captain started reporting problems with a list and fence rails down.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... ater&ifg=1