So something that has lain at the bottom of the sea bed for more than 60 years is now suddenly considered to be a danger to shipping?

Everyone knows it is was there, ever thought of just sailing round it???

IanW,

The potential danger to shipping was, as the article says, the possibility of fishing nets snagging it. Normal ships would not experience a danger because their draft is not sufficient to come into contact with it. However, a trawler with nets being trawled close to the sea bed could have problems.

Hi there Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head #2 - presumably these trawlers would have their echo location devices switched on so they would know what is under them.

I wonder why they have to fish so close to where these wrecks ar since there at least 5 others there. Is this just a case of trawlers ripping out anything on the seabed that moves and to hell with the damage they do.

You seem very upset about this IanW

Hi there lectromik #4 - No, not with this story in particular. My concern is the continual attack on common sense and such which leads to reports like this. If the thing has been around for 60 years doesn't the trawler captain not have a responsibility to avoid the thing?

It's not just this, it is the way our society is changing for the worse, in my opinion. Take for example the idea now that children cannot play conkers in school without wearing special protective clothing as bits might fly off and harm them. Or another one about 'teaching' children in school how to read about how much sugar, salt, etc. is in the foods they buy? Surely that is the responsibility of the parents?

Or another example from this paper some time ago. Then a cyclist was hurt when he crashed into the back of another who had lost control because of hitting a pothole. The second cyclist sued the first blaming him. Shouldn't the second one not have been responsible for his own actions, i.e. avoiding a crash?

These type of activities have been going on for years and years, does everything have to be controlled (and banned) by the state? or should we (society) take personal responsibility for our actions.

I suppose really I am just like those in the television series "Grumpy Old Men". Perhaps I should just sit in the corner and shut up.

Have a good weekend.

IanW:

"...I wonder why they have to fish so close to where these wrecks..."

So do I, however, there is a good chance that if they are below a certain depth, they would not be marked on a chart as they pose no danger to normal shipping. If the trawler is not fitted with the latest sub-sea imagary equipment, and many are not, then they wouldn't even know it was there. A normal echo sounder wouldn't be able to detect things like wrecks, unless they were VERY big---in which case they would probably be charted in any case.

You normally expect to find plenty of wrecks in coastal waters for obvious reasons, but this being an aircraft, normal principles with wrecks of ships do not apply.

I'm as annoyed by stupidity and nanny-stateism as you are, but in this case I think it is all fair enough.

The reason they fish so close to the wrecks is that the wrecks act as artificial reefs, and attract fish - they were probably deliberately trawling as close to the wreck as possible when they snagged their nets, so it was basically their own fault.
Now that the wing has been removed, there is no reason for fish to congregate in the area, so other fishermen will have to find their catch somewhere else.