Appellant complains generally of various claimed errors by the trial court. We agree with the reasoning of its opinion, however; and its findings of fact are not shown to be clearly erroneous — a demonstration not attempted by appellant.

Drachenberg v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 571 F.2d 912 (5th Cir. 1978), does not support appellant’s contention that a mooring cleat which was part of another’s dock should be considered part of ROMANDA SUE, where these were connected by a line only. The marine arm in Drachenberg was firmly affixed to the vessel to such a degree as to have become an integral part of it, and was under common ownership with the vessel. Indeed, Drachenberg itself cites Davis v. W. Bruns & Co., 476 F.2d 246 (5th Cir. 1973), holding that a connection by guy wires was insufficient for such purposes.

AFFIRMED.