On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:43:19 -0500, Keith wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:15:26 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article 7tILf.569$fL3.557@fed1read01,
Mark Fergerson wrote:
[...]
Don't forget the Edmund Fitzgerald; it is thought that it sank due to
a methane ice blowoff.


Thought by who? As I understand it, the Edmund Fitzgerald went into
shallow water in an attempt to avoid the worse of a storm. The waves plus
the draft of the boat was enough that it could have struck the bottom.
The bottom around there is rocky and lumpy.

Struck bottom in 530 feet of water? There is a guess that it had struck a
shoal earlier, causing bottom damage but no proof.

There was also an issue of sloppy practice involved. Other ships (the
same companies I believe) were inspected just after the sinking. The
other ships did not have the hatches properly dogged down. When the
bottom of the ship got punched, it opened it and broke the structure of
the spine. Without the hatches held in place, the water came in very
fast. The hatches also add strength to the ship making it basically a
tube. With the bottom weakened and the hatches loose, the ship had all
the strength of a noodle. It went under the next big wave and never came
up.

The official report concluded that the spine didn't break until it hit
bottom (the fore and aft sections are too close together). The hatches
are quite suspect though. The reports are quite controversial though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Edmund_Fitzgerald

Its still a great song however.

Indeed.

I have a distant cousin on her.

Gunner



"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them;
the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
- Proverbs 22:3