Four Daughters

Type:
shipwreck, clam dredge, USA
Built:
2003, Eastern Shipbuilding, Panama City FL USA
Specs:
( 86 ft ) 196 tons, ? crew
Sunk:
Thursday July 17, 2003
cause unknown - no casualties ?
GPS:
39°59.46' -73°11.25’ (NOAA 2003)
Depth:
130 ft

The brand-new Four Daughters sank on her maiden voyage. Seas were 2-3 feet, winds 5-10 knots variable, weather clear. The wreck lies almost upside-down, pushed into the bottom up to the gunwales, so basically just a steel mound.

From the NOAA Incident Report:

The 86 foot fishing vessel (F/V) Four Daughters was reported to have sunk 52 nautical miles SE of Sandy Hook NJ at around 0230 hours that night of 17 July 2003. When the vessel sank it was reported to have a capacity of some 8,000 gallons of diesel fuel. At 1600 hours of 17 July the Coast Guard's Fifth Coast Guard District "M" staff requested from NOAA a trajectory for the diesel fuel that might be released from the tanks of the F/V Four Daughters. By 1715 hours NOAA provided to the Fifth Coast Guard District initial trajectory and weather reports. NOAA suggested that no diesel products were expected to contact the shoreline from a release from a sunken vessel at this distance offshore. NOAA's report also stated that if oil did leak diesel from the vessel that "we would expect some rainbow to silver sheen to extend for several hundred yards downwind of the location where the vessel sank." The detailed NOAA weather report that was provided to the Coast Guard outlined that winds would be light and variable at 5-10 knots on Thursday night and on Friday with a chance of isolated showers and thunderstorms on Friday afternoon. MSO Philadelphia reported to Fifth District that a Coast Guard over-flight of the area on the afternoon of 17 July did observe some wreckage from the F/V Four Daughters, but did not observe any floating oil.

Surprisingly, there are neither newspaper nor Coast Guard records of this sinking. I assume there were no casualties, as none were reported. Except for the NOAA report above, which is primarily concerned with pollution, NOTHING was reported. This is very strange, feels like a cover-up, but why? Now I can't even find the NOAA report any more.

640772, IMO 8986614


Comments on Four Daughters

Questions or Inquiries?

Just want to say Hello? Sign the .

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Click image to replace if unable to read.

Enter the digits from the image above, except for the last one:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


By Bret Gilliam - 3/16/01
Technical Diving Editor and CEO
Technical Diving International

Are we hypocrites, or just following established guidelines established by reasonable people to protect our clients??

The April 2001 issue of Rodale's Scuba Diving has numerous articles acknowledging the practice and practicality of Solo Diving. I'm going to enter the articles and acknowledge the authors of each (rather than plagiarize these good peoples work)

Let's welcome the new millennium by finally ending the absurd controversy over solo diving and grant certification status to experienced divers through formalized process.

Codifying solo-diving with practical standards makes sense for two reasons: First, divers are who currently diving independently without formal training will be encouraged to receive the instruction they need. Second, the buddy system is deeply flawed. It fosters dependent behavior in many divers and is a proven not to enhance safety. In fact, it may do just the opposite for many divers forced into the role of buddy.