Reading up on the Big Fitz Edmund Fitzgerald

Yes, I thought that was interesting. A ship that size must have been overcome by water very quickly if the bridge crew didn't have time to relay information. It is my contention, then, that the ship broke in two at the surface, so that flooding would be rampant and immediate. Considering how the water flowed inside the two pieces from the latter end of the bow and the front end of the stern (despite the tremendous under current), it's easy to see how the two pieces landed close to one another on the bottom. This is my theory, anyway.
 
I'm inclined to agree with that for the most part...subject to any revisions that modern day forensics may be able to show of course. It wouldn't be the first time a ship was overcome that quickly and that catastrophically in heavy wheather. The holds of a Great Lakes frieghter are enormous and with the whole ship coming apart, it wouldn't take very long for all of them to be swamped.
 
The question is: What was it that made such a big ship break in two in the first place? I haven't seen theories on this, just theories regarding "what caused the ship to sink," which, to me is a vague question, since there are different phases of any sinking brought about through a cause-and-effect process. For example: The sinking of the Titanic could be thought of in this cause-and-effect process:

Darkness and increased speed >> collision with the iceberg >> inflow of water at the bow >> "icetray" effect of water spilling over bulkheads >> bow being pulled under >> upper windows and open portholes provide added access for water >> increases speed of water inflow >> creation of extreme weight in submerged bow >> creates an imbalance which Titanic structure, by design, cannot tolerate >> ship breaks in two at aft expansion, just aft of the third funnel, where there is open space >> Bow's momentous pull toward the bottom pulls the keel free >> stern goes even due to release of excess weigh that had been caused by the water-filled bow >> opening at front of stern section takes on water >> pulls the after part of the ship vertical >> stern fills with water and sinks vertically due to lack of inbalance.

The EF, however, seems to lack the initial causes (of course, my knowledge on this sinking is much more limited than Titanic):

Storm, tempest waters, heavy winds >> (???) >> causes ship to break in two >> lack of heavy weight in the middle >> central section of ship crumbles away >> bow and stern both quickly fill with water >> bow settles upright on the bottom, while stern, unbalanced because the forward part is a portion of the weaker center section, flips over on it's way straight to the bottom >> since both pieces (theoretically) sink straight down (more or less), they land about 100 feet from each other.

Notice the question mark at the beginning of the process? This, as I have seen (unless I missed something) has not been definitely answered and is left up to conjecture and a handful of possibilities (open hatches, etc.). This point in the process, however, is a crucial point in the sinking that will, if and when found, explain what caused the ship to break in two. Until then, the breaking lacks some cohesion in solid comprehension because we aren't certain 100% what brought it about.

Michael, do you contend with this reasoning?
 
>>What was it that made such a big ship break in two in the first place?<<

Stresses greater then the hull girder could possibly survive in general terms. The rest is haggling over the details. A storm is seldom enough in and of itself to do the job, though it's not outside the realm of possibility. However, there are always a veriaty of other aggravating factors to take into account. It's not possible to rule out the possibility that one of the cargo covers wasn't properly dogged down for example, and there is some evidence which indicates that the 'Fitz may have run over a submerged rock. Either way, one the water has a way in, the stresses start to increase until it all reaches the breaking point.

Lots of room for discussion and debate here.

>>Michael, do you contend with this reasoning?<<

To a point, but note what I said about other possible aggravating factors. With the loss of the S.S. Marine Electric for example, one is talking about an old worn out ship with a hull in such poor shape, she never should have made that final trip in the first place even in calm waters, much less an Atlantic gale. With the bulk carrier Derbyshire, the most likely cause was a vent all the way up forward that let gave the ocean easy access to the forward cargo hold. Not a good thing when sailing into the teeth a typhoon.
 
>>she never should have made that final trip in the first place even in calm waters, much less an Atlantic gale. With the bulk carrier Derbyshire, the most likely cause was a vent all the way up forward that let gave the ocean easy access to the forward cargo hold. Not a good thing when sailing into the teeth a typhoon.<<

Then she shouldn't have gone. Why did she?


>>Stresses greater then the hull girder could possibly survive in general terms.<<

That's true, but as you know, there are different kinds of stress. Figuring out specifically what caused that stress will help further study stress-related scenarios that will assist in improving the quality of shipbuilding. That's why I say the details are important to consider.


>>A storm is seldom enough in and of itself to do the job, though it's not outside the realm of possibility.<<

True, but you have to admit that this storm was not your 'average' storm (if there is such a thing, but I think you know what I mean). We must remember two things: (1) The storm was, as said, greater than anything that McSorley, in his own words, had ever encountered, and (2) because of the fact that it was a a greater storm and beyond the Captain's experiences, those on board weren't ready for or used to it. So, keeping in mind these two things, it may be possible for the storm to play a pivotal roll in the break-up. However, I see your reasoning regarding the underwater rock and agree that the storm had assistance in the destruction of the ship. Still, to ascertain the type of stress that played a part in the break-up, we'd need more details. Furthermore, in ascertaining what kind of stress was involved, we can likewise determine what other factors were involved.
 
On straight deck bulk freighters the majority of weight is in the center that is purpose of the design. The Fitz was a sister in the famed AAA Class of ships. All of her sisters survive to this day and all except the Reserve are in service.

The sinking of the Fitzgerald is a mystery shrowded by another mystery. I am currently assisting an author writing a book on the subject. On the lakes weather has a large impact on most sinkings. But the ships reaction does to.

The Fitz was a limber ship. She shouldn't have been sailing that year let alone that late in the season. The break up of the ship is obviously what caused her sinking. But the break up is no suprise. The Coast Guard had signed off on the ship running half of a season and exteneded a second pass for this last (what turned out to be final) run. She need work and she needed it badly.

Lake boats are tough be design. The loading and unloading process although percise is tough on a ship. If the ship is limber as the past crewmembers say she was then years upon years of tough wear and a delay in a needed yard period could have been the reason for the ships demise.

The storm was larger and bigger then any Captain had seen up to that point. The Storm of 1913 was far worse but the one that took the Fitz was a biggin too.

You have to remeber that a ships life before a sinking and before the weather has a lot to do with how she will ultimatley meet her fate.

Stress is key, weather is key, construction is key and the ships life is a key.

Oh, did I forget to mention that all of the AAA sisters where pulled from service after the Fitz went down and all of them had to have some work done.
 
>>Then she shouldn't have gone. Why did she?<<

In a word...money.

Ship owners will try to get as much out of a given hull as possible whether it's a good idea or not. Understandable in light of the investment made and the revenue that could be earned, but that often means that they'll take some very big risks. The reasoning seems to be "We got away with it last time, we should be able to milk one more run out of the old gal." Especially if by hook or by crook, they managed to pass an inspection by whatever authorities have jurisdiction.

This sort of reasoning can have some deadly consequences.
 
Erik,
Actually 1 of the Fitz's sisters doesnt survive to this day and that is the Arthur B Homer and the Reserve is in service. I recently photographed her unloading in Superior Wi.
 
I thought the Reserve, Burton (not a sister to the Fitz) and....Buckeye where all out of service this season???

The Homer??? Was that a Columbia Star/Oglebay Norton boat?? The name Arthur B. Homer rings a bell do have any information on the ships demize??

The lakes, in general are not known for shotty ship keeping. There are ships on the lakes that have been around over 75 years and still in operation, the old Myron C. Taylor and Calcite II come to mind. The Southbound Challenger is also up there and I am sure there are plenty more. Most of the fleets are known for taking care of there ships.

In a recent interview, I noted in particular how Great Lakes ships are usually taken care of far better then their ocean going cousins. The nature of the trade, the nature of the routes demand it. There is far less wiggle room when operating on the lakes then there is open ocean.

Chris, if you have it on hand can you post a list of the AAA's that where built and considered to be sisters of the Fitz (in design) and if they are still operating and under what name?? Also include the companies they have worked for if you have that information.
 
Eirk,
All i know of the sisters is the Homer she was scrapped I believe in the late 80s. I know for sure the Reserve is sailing this season as for Burton and Buckeye I dunno if I'll ever see those 2 sail again...sadly. The AAA's that are around today would be the Anderson, Clarke, and Callaway all sailing this season. The Anderson, Clarke and Callway were all run by USS Fleet in their early days and are now owned by Great Lakes Fleet which I believe is run by canada cuz i know canada baught that fleet and the oredocks in duluth and two harbor minn. Hope this helps a little. If there's anything else u'd like to know i'd be glade to help
 
> You folks are missing a most important sister. The William Clay Ford which left the safety of White Fish bay to help the Anderson in her search. Built at Great Lakes Engineering Works, River Rouge Michigan in 1953. This is the same company and location that built the Fitzgerald in 1958. The Ford's hull number was 300 while the Fitzgerald's was 301. Now that's close!
 
Thanks Charles almost forgot about her but here are the names of the 8 AAA frieghter; 1) Arthur M. Anderson 2) Phillip R. Clarke 3) Cason J. Callaway 4) Armco 5) Reserve 6) Edward B. Greene (now Kaye E. Barker) 7) J.L. Mauthe (now Pathfinder) 8) William Clay Ford (scrapped)
 

Similar threads

N
Edmund Fitzgerald exploration
3 4
Replies
46
Views
26K
Tad G. Fitch
T
Jason D. Tiller
New documentary on the Edmund Fitzgerald
Replies
6
Views
4K
George L. Lorton
G
T
Edmund Fitzgerald Sinking Theory
2
Replies
22
Views
8K
Wayne (Notso) Keen
Wayne (Notso) Keen
Dan Kappes
Was the Edmund Fitzgerald unlucky from the start?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Ada
A
J
Edmund Fitzgerald 25th anniversary of sinking
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
Shelley Dziedzic
Shelley Dziedzic
Back
Top