Edmund Fitzgerald November 10,1975

[pipistrelle]

Lake Michigan drowns the most swimmers due to riptides. IIRC it has something to do with the parallel north/south shores.

And if Superior doesn't get you, mass wasting at Pictured Rocks could.

You may be right about the reason for the riptides, but Lake Michigan may be higher for drownings also because of opportunity.

1. There are some major and larger minor metropolitan areas along Lake Michigan.

2. Many people who live in said metropolitan areas get out of town by just driving up one side or another of the lake and spend time being Fudgies (tourists in northern lower Michigan who come up and by fudge) and FIPs (Fucking Illinois People - Chicago area tourists on the lower part of Lake Michigan in Michigan).

3. Lake Michigan is a better swimming lake. Lake Superior is really cold any time of year. It also is not well known for its soft sandy beaches. It does have the best skipping stones.

Agree about more opportunity. More population and beachgoers.

Also, one time I went out on a boat on Superior in summer, they gave the weather report. Water temperature: 37ºF. Strong incentive not to fall in. In November I can't think anyone would last long.

From Wikipedia about changes made after the Fitzgerald wrecked:

The USCG investigation of Edmund Fitzgerald's sinking resulted in 15 recommendations regarding load lines, weathertight integrity, search and rescue capability, lifesaving equipment, crew training, loading manuals, and providing information to masters of Great Lakes vessels.[183] NTSB's investigation resulted in 19 recommendations for the USCG, four recommendations for the American Bureau of Shipping, and two recommendations for NOAA.[172] Of the official recommendations, the following actions and USCG regulations were put in place:

1. In 1977, the USCG made it a requirement that all vessels of 1,600 gross register tons and over use depth finders.[184]
2. Since 1980, survival suits have been required aboard ship in each crew member's quarters and at their customary work station with strobe lights affixed to life jackets and survival suits.[185]
3. A LORAN-C positioning system for navigation on the Great Lakes was implemented in 1980 and later replaced with Global Positioning System (GPS) in the 1990s.[186]
4. Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBs) are installed on all Great Lakes vessels for immediate and accurate location in event of a disaster.[185]
5. Navigational charts for northeastern Lake Superior were improved for accuracy and greater detail.[187]
6. NOAA revised its method for predicting wave heights.[187]
7. The USCG rescinded the 1973 Load Line Regulation amendment that permitted reduced freeboard loadings.[188]
8. The USCG began the annual pre-November inspection program recommended by the NTSB. "Coast Guard inspectors now board all U.S. ships during the fall to inspect hatch and vent closures and lifesaving equipment."[189]
Karl Bohnak, an Upper Peninsula meteorologist, covered the sinking and storm in a book on local weather history. In this book, Joe Warren, a deckhand on Arthur M. Anderson during the November 10, 1975, storm, said that the storm changed the way things were done. He stated, "After that, trust me, when a gale came up we dropped the hook [anchor]. We dropped the hook because they found out the big ones could sink."[190] Mark Thompson wrote, "Since the loss of the Fitz, some captains may be more prone to go to anchor, rather than venturing out in a severe storm, but there are still too many who like to portray themselves as 'heavy weather sailors.'"[191]

I haven't read much on the Fitzgerald yet, but there must have been differences between it and the Anderson, which somehow emerged unscathed (and helped guide the Fitzgerald after it lost radar).

[northland10]

I haven't read much on the Fitzgerald yet, but there must have been differences between it and the Anderson, which somehow emerged unscathed (and helped guide the Fitzgerald after it lost radar).

While the AA was traveling in the same direction, they may have been doing some things differently and hit different parts of the storm. If the Fitzgerald had a final catastrophic moment, that may have only hit them.

The SS Arthur Anderson was a slightly older ship, but she had a larger draft, and the summer before the storm, she was lengthened by 120 feet. I would suspect that the drydock work would have included updating various areas including the hatches, reducing the chance of taking on water during the trip. They would have had to increase the strength of the existing structure to accommodate the longer length. I don't know how high the load line was for the AA, but the Fitzgerald had the load line raised recently which would have caused her to also run lower in the water.

There may be a captain difference as well. One thought is that the Fitzgerald captain was a pusher with storms so he may have taken on more risks to push through while Cooper on the AA backed off a little. That is just a theory I am thinking about so take it for what it's worth.

In the long run, there were probably a bunch of smaller issues that all combined to create the final catastrophe (or make the final issues catastrophic).

[bill_g]

Lk Superior is not that cold. The park services on both sides regularly throw in a pack of lit matches to warm it up a bit. Likewise they both have plenty of civilian volunteers to offer fresh warm bodily fluids that help keep the lake at a cozy temperature year round. Like the Yoopers say "You're not in trouble. Urine the U.P."

[northland10]

Lk Superior is not that cold. The park services on both sides regularly throw in a pack of lit matches to warm it up a bit. Likewise they both have plenty of civilian volunteers to offer fresh warm bodily fluids that help keep the lake at a cozy temperature year round. Like the Yoopers say "You're not in trouble. Urine the da U.P., eh."

FIFY

[noblepa]

I haven't read much on the Fitzgerald yet, but there must have been differences between it and the Anderson, which somehow emerged unscathed (and helped guide the Fitzgerald after it lost radar).

While the AA was traveling in the same direction, they may have been doing some things differently and hit different parts of the storm. If the Fitzgerald had a final catastrophic moment, that may have only hit them.

The SS Arthur Anderson was a slightly older ship, but she had a larger draft, and the summer before the storm, she was lengthened by 120 feet. I would suspect that the drydock work would have included updating various areas including the hatches, reducing the chance of taking on water during the trip. They would have had to increase the strength of the existing structure to accommodate the longer length. I don't know how high the load line was for the AA, but the Fitzgerald had the load line raised recently which would have caused her to also run lower in the water.

There may be a captain difference as well. One thought is that the Fitzgerald captain was a pusher with storms so he may have taken on more risks to push through while Cooper on the AA backed off a little. That is just a theory I am thinking about so take it for what it's worth.

In the long run, there were probably a bunch of smaller issues that all combined to create the final catastrophe (or make the final issues catastrophic).

There is also one theory, that the Fitz hit an underwater rock, causing her to take on water, making her ride even lower in the water. I don't think that, even after finding and examining the wreck, anyone has come up with a definitive answer.

When I toured the Gerald S. Mather, another laker that is now a museum in Cleveland, the guide said that, in very bad weather, a large wave can break over the bow, causing the bow to ride a little lower until the water can drain off. If the ship plows into a high wave, the engines can keep running and literally drive the ship to the bottom. I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that this is what happened to the Fitz.

[pipistrelle]

I haven't read much on the Fitzgerald yet, but there must have been differences between it and the Anderson, which somehow emerged unscathed (and helped guide the Fitzgerald after it lost radar).

While the AA was traveling in the same direction, they may have been doing some things differently and hit different parts of the storm. If the Fitzgerald had a final catastrophic moment, that may have only hit them.

The SS Arthur Anderson was a slightly older ship, but she had a larger draft, and the summer before the storm, she was lengthened by 120 feet. I would suspect that the drydock work would have included updating various areas including the hatches, reducing the chance of taking on water during the trip. They would have had to increase the strength of the existing structure to accommodate the longer length. I don't know how high the load line was for the AA, but the Fitzgerald had the load line raised recently which would have caused her to also run lower in the water.

There may be a captain difference as well. One thought is that the Fitzgerald captain was a pusher with storms so he may have taken on more risks to push through while Cooper on the AA backed off a little. That is just a theory I am thinking about so take it for what it's worth.

In the long run, there were probably a bunch of smaller issues that all combined to create the final catastrophe (or make the final issues catastrophic).

There is also one theory, that the Fitz hit an underwater rock, causing her to take on water, making her ride even lower in the water. I don't think that, even after finding and examining the wreck, anyone has come up with a definitive answer.

When I toured the Gerald S. Mather, another laker that is now a museum in Cleveland, the guide said that, in very bad weather, a large wave can break over the bow, causing the bow to ride a little lower until the water can drain off. If the ship plows into a high wave, the engines can keep running and literally drive the ship to the bottom. I don't think that anyone has ever suggested that this is what happened to the Fitz.

There's this from weather.gov:

Although there is speculation that the Fitzgerald broke in half on the surface as the bow and stern rode the crests of the two large waves that struck the Anderson earlier, the Coast Guard’s final report suggests the Fitzgerald instead nose dived into a large wave, was unable to recover because it had lost so much buoyancy, and plunged to the bottom of Lake Superior in seconds. As the heavy cargo shifted forward quickly while the Fitzgerald was going down, the bow of the ship hit the bottom with such force that the vessel snapped in two.

No mention of running engines, though.

There's this detail:

Minutes after passing near "Six Fathom Shoal," McSorley radioed he had water entering the vessel and damage consistent with a brief snapping/bending of the hull.

Not surprised it wrecked in the conditions; the mystery is the cause. Like Northland, I suspect it was a variety of circumstances-the higher load line, taking on water (the list), rogue waves, some maintenance issues that were mentioned-that came together.

Someone wrote that only the crew would know what happened. I suspect it was so sudden they didn't.

[Whatever4]

My grandfather worked on the lake boats. He and my grandmother honeymooned on one where he was tending the boat in the dead of winter. (She told us once about taking a bath in one of the huge soup kettles.)

He returned from a months-long assignment when my mother was a toddler. Mom didn’t recognize him. He quit that day and worked on land-based cranes from then on.

I think of him when I hear this song.

[bill_g]

Lk Superior is not that cold. The park services on both sides regularly throw in a pack of lit matches to warm it up a bit. Likewise they both have plenty of civilian volunteers to offer fresh warm bodily fluids that help keep the lake at a cozy temperature year round. Like the Yoopers say "You're not in trouble. Urine the da U.P., eh."

FIFY

TY eh.

[RTH10260]

[pipistrelle]

That’s a big’un.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Indiana_Harbor

[keith]

There is also one theory, that the Fitz hit an underwater rock, causing her to take on water, making her ride even lower in the water. I don't think that, even after finding and examining the wreck, anyone has come up with a definitive answer.

After examining the Fitz and the shoal, researchers have come to the conclusion that there is no evidence that the ship hit the shoal. Not on the Fitz, and not on the shoal.