Re: Fitz Question
Posted: February 1, 2023, 8:27 pm
How close was the Fitz to the shoal area?
The only thing I know and believe is that she filled up with water. You can look at my prior posts on what I speculate.Scott wrote: ↑January 29, 2023, 11:13 amDon't know if the ballast tanks were breached? Looks like someone isn't buying into the entire list of the Fitzgerald theory. How else would that amount of lake water (enough to cause a list) get into the holds? Faulty hatch clamping? Not! To me, it's obvious that there was a hull breach after the Fitz passed near or over six fathom shoal. It was after this point that McSorely called in his list and fence rails down. I guess the hatch clamps gave out at that point? The Fitz was also running to Whitefish with 2 ballast pumps working to pump out the water pouring into her. That was unsuccessful. We can speculate all we like about the demise of the Fitz, but at least make it believable.Jared wrote: ↑January 28, 2023, 3:21 amWe don't know if the tanks were breached or not. There are 8 ballast tanks per side of the vessel. 2 vents for 2 ballast tanks on the sides and and 3 single vents for the walkway tunnel underneath the deck per side.Guest wrote: ↑January 26, 2023, 3:40 pm Realizing it is a mute point, I am curious as to knowing if 1 or 2 ballast tanks on the Fitzgerald were breached, could the water somehow find it's way into the cargo hold? I always thought ballast tanks were separate and basically watertight. The list the Fitzgerald reported is very possibly related to taking on water through breaching of ballast tanks. I've never bought the ineffective hatch closure theory by the NTSB/Coast Guard.
Of course, if a stress fracture occurred, then it's basically a mortal wound.
Please keep the questions technical, factual, and to the point as the mods dread these threads dealing with the Fitzgerald as arguments become quite intensive and emotional for some.
Simplified-General-Arrangement-Sketch-of-the-Edmund-Fitzgerald_Q640.jpg
Don't know if the ballast tanks were breached? Looks like someone isn't buying into the entire list of the Fitzgerald theory. How else would that amount of lake water (enough to cause a list) get into the holds? Faulty hatch clamping? Not! To me, it's obvious that there was a hull breach after the Fitz passed near or over six fathom shoal. It was after this point that McSorely called in his list and fence rails down. I guess the hatch clamps gave out at that point? The Fitz was also running to Whitefish with 2 ballast pumps working to pump out the water pouring into her. That was unsuccessful. We can speculate all we like about the demise of the Fitz, but at least make it believable.Jared wrote: ↑January 28, 2023, 3:21 amWe don't know if the tanks were breached or not. There are 8 ballast tanks per side of the vessel. 2 vents for 2 ballast tanks on the sides and and 3 single vents for the walkway tunnel underneath the deck per side.Guest wrote: ↑January 26, 2023, 3:40 pm Realizing it is a mute point, I am curious as to knowing if 1 or 2 ballast tanks on the Fitzgerald were breached, could the water somehow find it's way into the cargo hold? I always thought ballast tanks were separate and basically watertight. The list the Fitzgerald reported is very possibly related to taking on water through breaching of ballast tanks. I've never bought the ineffective hatch closure theory by the NTSB/Coast Guard.
Of course, if a stress fracture occurred, then it's basically a mortal wound.
Please keep the questions technical, factual, and to the point as the mods dread these threads dealing with the Fitzgerald as arguments become quite intensive and emotional for some.
Simplified-General-Arrangement-Sketch-of-the-Edmund-Fitzgerald_Q640.jpg
We don't know if the tanks were breached or not. There are 8 ballast tanks per side of the vessel. 2 vents for 2 ballast tanks on the sides and and 3 single vents for the walkway tunnel underneath the deck per side.Guest wrote: ↑January 26, 2023, 3:40 pm Realizing it is a mute point, I am curious as to knowing if 1 or 2 ballast tanks on the Fitzgerald were breached, could the water somehow find it's way into the cargo hold? I always thought ballast tanks were separate and basically watertight. The list the Fitzgerald reported is very possibly related to taking on water through breaching of ballast tanks. I've never bought the ineffective hatch closure theory by the NTSB/Coast Guard.
Of course, if a stress fracture occurred, then it's basically a mortal wound.