Talk:Andrea Gail

message: I added the 106th RQW from the NY ANG because they were the search and rescue unit that lost a Pararescueman during the SAR mission.
: I removed the 106th reference because the SAR mission in which Rick Smith was lost had nothing to do with the Andrea Gail. It was in response to a distress call from a different vessel, a sailboat that was much closer to the U.S. coast. Colden46 07:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't forget about the 106th 

message: I found a great link on the official Coast Guard site to the Marine Casualty Report on the disappearance of the Andrea Gail.  I noticed the Andrea Gail article had no references or anything, but am too new to Wiki to start entering citations on my own.  Here is the link to the page:  http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/moa/reportindexcas2.htm#mi
Scroll down to date 10/30/1991 (the date the Andrea Gail was officially reported missing) and click on the text to open the .pdf file.  Here is the link directly to the .pdf file:  http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/moa/docs/fvag.pdf
Hope this is helpful.
Hlhamiltong 09:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coast Guard's official Casualty Report re: Andrea Gail disappearance in pdf format 

message: This page should have increased references/citations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.77.30 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Should the article be renamed? Most other fishing vessel articles are titled F/V (Name). See this category for more: :Category:Fishing ships of the United States --Daysleeper47 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: This lacks a lot of detail and really only focuses on its disappearance. My suggestion is to give a history of the vessel, an estimate of its annual income (or its variances), why it was re-named Andrea Gail and why it was originally named Miss Penny. The one sentence "She was originally named Miss Penny," stands out like someone added it last minute and doesn't belong in its present location. I have no experience with this information, else I would work on it. I'm just making suggestions for those who know more about it. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. The article could use a good cleanup. We need some reliable sources for the kind of information you suggest. —Diiscool (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement 

message: I don't think there was sufficient research into the sizes of the waves that Andrea Gail may have been dealing with.  This article says, "  But the Wikipedia article on "The Perfect Storm" states, "A buoy located 264 miles (425 km) south of Halifax reported a wave height of 100.7 feet (30.7 m) on October 30."  This indicates that the storm did record waves higher than 39' and, not knowing when the Andrea Gail actually sank, it may very well have encountered a wave much larger than 39'.  The above sentence and the article referred imply that the storm was over-dramatized, but it seems the story was a lot different in the middle of the ocean.  I think a bit more digging is needed here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.93.66 (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Wave Size 

message: Speed: 	15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph)
I think 15 knots is an error. Andrea Gail is reported to have been 72′ OAL. Her profile displays substantial rake to her stem so I estimate she was about 68′ LWL. Her hull was full displacement which means it is virtually impossible for such a hull to be driven at greater than her design hull speed. For Andrea Gail this is 1.34 times the square root of LWL (1.34 × 8.246 = 11.05 knots). To achieve a 15 knots speed she would have to be driven at 1.82 (15 ÷ 8.246 = 1.82), which is extremely unlikely, if not virtually impossible for this type hull. See Hull speed.
98.159.72.189 (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good case, but we can't put this information into the article without a reliable source that discusses it. To do otherwise would be synthesis. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I find her speed at only one online source, here. One could argue that that source does not qualify as a reliable source for our purposes. It's also possible that that source got its number from this Wikipedia article, and it might be possible through some detective work to establish whether or not its number pre-dates the number in this article. If this process leaves us without a reliable source for the number, the number fails WP:Verifiability and it should be removed from this article. It doesn't necessarily have to have a citation pointing to the source, but the source has to exist.We're not limited to online sources, and a book might be a better source for this number, but few Wikipedia editors are inclined to spend a couple of hours at the library researching this kind of thing. What we can't do is apply our own personal knowledge or reasoning, as DonIago indicated. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what is the article's ″source″ for that 15 knots parameter? In Junger's book on pg 29 he writes Andrea Gail is capable of twelve knots but even this is wishful thinking. After a boat such as A.G. is built the designer/naval architect conducts speed trials – different RPMs over a measured mile – and plots a speed curve. This might have been done in 1978 but whatever the result was invalidated by the alterations to add endurance to A.G. Junger wrote were performed in 1987 (see pg 35.) She would have been slightly slower after those changes were made since, again Junger writes, about ten tons of mass were added to her gross weight. In fact, I would argue that after these modifications, with only 365 hp available, she wasn't even capable of formula hull speed. One last observation to add a bit more confusion: a CAT 3408 is rated at 600 bhp continuous, as for a fishing vessel that starts the engine and powers it off a month later. Also, tonnage is a problematic term. I checked at the USCG's registry of documented vessels, https://cgmix.uscg.mil/psix/psixsearch.aspx, and 92 tons is A.G.′s gross tonnage, which is a legal abstraction, not her displacement, which also means I can't, with perfect accuracy predict her formula hull speed. Still, using the standard naval architecture formulas 15 knots is so atypical for a vessel such as A.G. as to warrant some sort of disclaimer in the article. Even Hannah Boden, at 100′ LOA is not capable of 15 knots. At about 95′ LWL her formula hull speed is 13 knots with a Caterpillar 3412 engine rated at 720 bhp. (Note: formula hull speed is a function of LWL in displacement vessels.) I'm probably the only person in the world who cares about this stuff, and I could support my assertions with all manner of theoretical calculations, but there are two others who might know, although their opinions would be anecdotal; Charlie Reed, the captain of A.G. immediately preceding Billy Tyne, assuming he is still alive, and Linda Greenlaw. I tried to find Reed via the Internet and drew a blank.98.159.72.189 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As we've said, we can't apply our own analysis to judge the accuracy of any source on this point. We can only judge the reliability of a source in general.If the book says 12 knots, we can use 12 knots. If we did so, it would be prudent to "protect" that number by citing the book with a reference, probably one using the  template. That would be a signal to future editors that they should leave the number alone unless they can produce a more reliable source than the book. If there is disagreement between editors, it might become necessary to establish a consensus on the question, and Wikipedia has seen countless monumental battles over less significant things than this.For now, the source is the web page I linked above. I said "one could" challenge its reliability, not that I necessarily would do so. But I'm not opposed to using the book's number, and I could even be persuaded to code the reference for it, if that would help. I'd need to know the year or date of publication, for the edition that has this information on page 29. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with 12 knots. When the boat was new, with a half-load and with a clean hull it probably did do twelve. I poked Paul Gran, the A.G. model-maker, by email to see whether he had any hard data. Sebastian Junger, The Perfect Storm (New York: First HarperPerennial edition 1999) 29.  98.159.72.189 (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  - If Gran has harder data, it has to be accessible to a reader per WP:Verifiability; e.g. a book or a web page. His words in an email, alone, are not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed of <em>Andrea Gail</em> 

message: At this writing three external links go to paywalled content and the fourth is to a conspiracy rant. Chrisdamato (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low quality external links 

message: Can someone add photos of the Andrea Gail onto this page? 2601:181:400:470:1979:C868:2AE8:5B3B (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of the F/V Andrea Gail need to be added.