34.6 investigation of video tapes by disengage /uk

34.6
Investigation Report of Video Tapes Featuring the
Car/Passenger Ferry "Estonia" by Disengage, Axminster/UK

All the video tapes available to this 'Group of Experts' showing the ESTONIA afloat and on the bottom of the sea were supplied to Disengage/UK specialised in the evaluation and interpretation of video tapes and the production of video images. The aim of the investigation conducted by Disengage at the beginning was to assist the explosive expert Mr. B. Braidwood in identifying possible explosion damage to the vessel. This has been completed and now the aim has been to identify the technical nature of the videos, provide fully detailed listings of the content of the cassettes, provide still images of any items of possible interest to the overall investigation and identify any anomalies in the content of the cassettes including missing sections of tape and unidentified activity of wreck site.
Thirteen cassettes have been submitted to Disengage for analysis. Of these 13 cassettes 4 stem from diver activity and 9 were filmed by remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs). This includes 3 tapes that are duplicates.
There are two main differences between videos made by ROVs and videos made by divers.

The ROV videos show data on screen during recording, including date, time, course, depth and camera pitch angle. The ROVs are also generally well lit due to them carrying more than one light to conduct filming.
The diver videos carry no data on screen resulting in dates and times being estimated from brief official documentation and on screen encounters with ROVs from which information is available. The picture quality of the divers videos is also hampered because of the poor lighting used on the head mounted cameras. The single very bright light tends to bleach out the images which effect has been worsened during the duplication process.
The investigation into the cause for the excessive brightness and unclear, foggy pictures revealed that the contractor Rockwater made the original master recordings of the underwater survey on VHS cassettes in a PAL format, however, tests have shown that the copies supplied have been played back and duplicated on PAL/SECAM machines without the necessary converters in place. This has created the breakdown in colour definition, excessive brightness and tracking problems making accurate work with the video tapes very difficult and sometimes impossible. The contractor Rockwater was further requested to explain why so many, and partly long, video pauses had been made respectively long parts of the tapes were just flickering. Their reply was that it is normal practice for cameras to continue recording, for safety and continuity, throughout a survey whether it is conducted by ROVs or divers which is especially relevant when an ROV such as the Sprint unit is used, because it is only image platform with no other capacity than the collection of stills and video. As out of 13 cassettes reviewed only 4 have no cuts (because they were most probably made for demonstration purposes) it is quite obvious that these cuts do not fall into the responsibility of the contractor Rockwater, but were made elsewhere. It has also become apparent that the breaks basically occur in the same areas of the vessel, for example the starboard shell plating in way of the 0-deck below the bridge and funnel.
Another concern regarding the cuts in the footage is the relationship between the on screen timing and the VHS time code. Most of the occasions when a tape cut takes place the elapsed time on the ROV 'on screen clock' is greater than that on the VHS cassettes when most of the cuts in the footage were made at the time of duplication and not when the survey was taking place.

In summary Disengage has made the following main findings:

According to the cassettes from the 2/10/94, 9/10/94 and the 2-4/12/94 there is evidence that between these dates there has been movement of what would be expected to be stationary items such as ropes and debris. This is most clear on the hawsers to the port side of the bow ramp.
According to the cassettes from the 2/10/94, 9/10/94 and the 2-4/12/94 there are occasions when other activity is taking place on the wreck, visible by other ROV and diver lights on footage. This activity is not covered in the available cassettes.
There are areas on the vessel that have not been surveyed enough to be documented properly. These areas are either missing from the footage due to cuts in the footage or because of a lack of detailed investigation when the ROV or divers are in the area.
This refers in particular to the starboard mudline, bow ramp hydraulic actuators and ramp locking hooks, seabed debris and the car deck in general. On the occasions when the ROV got to the starboard mudline the tape is cut between the funnel and bridge or until the ROV arrives at the starboard rudder or moves to another area on the hull away from the mudline.
The bow ramp actuators have both been bent and damaged, however the diver does not attempt to conduct any kind of detailed investigation. Apart from a brief comment about the eye on the end of the starboard actuator on tape B40c/number 19 there is no other comment or video documentation of these important items.
It is possible to access the car deck and on tape B40c/number 19 the diver enters it to inspect the ramp securing bolts and mating pockets. On the respective video there is remarkable damage briefly visible which is totally ignored by both the diver and his supervisor and all the many others in the control room on board of SEMI I who were watching what the diver was doing and frequently interfered with instructions.
For example, the diver briefly looked onto a big damage to the port longitudinal car deck bulkhead when he was climbing up the bottom flaps of the bow ramp from starboard to port.
On cassette B40b/number 20 the ROV attempts on several occasions to enter the car deck and fails. On several of these occasions the operator believes he has entered the car deck, but then discovers he's wrong and on the seabed. On the final occasion they are sure they have entered and this is very difficult to confirm due to several cuts in the tape, but on the later diver cassette B40e/number 10 from the same date and time the diver sees the ROV on the seabed at the same time as this footage. Due to the large number of cuts on this ROV tape B40b/number 20, including one cut of nearly one hour, no conclusions can be made. There is however some confusion in this ROVs activities as during the hour long cut in the ROVs footage the diver sees the ROV active and inside the bow ramp.
From the limited footage available from the seabed near the starboard bow of the vessel at a depth of 91 m it is difficult to identify many of the pieces visible, however, some wooden pallets with cement bags on can be seen as well as other debris. This is made worse by the very regular cuts in the footage throughout the time the ROVs are viewing the seabed.
On cassette B40a/number 6 dated 4/12/94 the opening dialogue on both the screen and audio commentary states that this is cassette two. Starting at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and featuring footage shot by the SPRINT ROV, no cassette has been received labelled as number one or any timed recording before this time on this date.
There is a large amount of repeat coverage of certain areas of the vessel without any new information, procedure, agenda or evidence being discovered.
On two of the cassettes that have been supplied, the official tape logs that have been supplied as documentation generated at the time of filming do not correspond with the content of the video cassette.
It has been confirmed by the contractor used for the diver survey, Rockwater, that it is common practice for divers to be equipped with two different earpieces to allow both the dive supervisor and technical personnel to communicate with the diver. It is apparent on the diver video B40c/ number 19 that the diver is receiving instructions in another earpiece. It is unfortunate that these instructions have apparently resulted in the missing of potentially important areas of the vessel survey. There are no transcripts at all of any of these communications.
There is evidence indicating that there has been movement of the bow ramp at some point before it came to rest in its current position. The evidence visible on the tapes is the two hawsers trapped inside the car deck on the port side near the manual side lock. The other evidence is on the starboard side where the visor actuator has caused considerable damage on the front bulkhead, there is a large flap of this metal caught between the ramp and the bulkhead and there is further evidence on the starboard bulkhead recess in way of the blown up fastening of the bow ramp actuator that the ramp had been opened/closed which it had already been resting on the starboard bulkhead.
On tape B40c/number 19 the divers have cut some items from the bow and are taking them to the crane for lifting, one diver is at the upper port side of the ramp and the other is at the bottom starboard side of the ramp. The diver who is standing on the starboard side bottom of the bow ramp near the hinge turns his head twice towards the seabed. On both occasions another diver is visible on the starboard side of the ramp below him, this diver is wearing different equipment from the two divers already detailed and is not explained in any of the other footage.
When the divers are in the area of the port bridge there is a large amount of damage on the under side of the port wing of the bridge which was - at least to some extent - already visible on the ROV video from 02.10.94 and the sheeting appears to be torn off the underside of the bridge wing with heavy scoring marks on the inner side of the vertical stanchion supporting the wing.
The lower outer wire strengthened glass window of the backside of the port bridge wing was also found to be broken trapping what appears to be a victim in the strengthening wire still attached to the window. The diver first pulled the mash wire away and then pulled the body out of the window and let it float away.
On tape B40d/number 9 the diver says that he is going to the seabed, but there is no tape showing this part of the survey.
In the time and date order of the cassettes, tape B40e/number 10 chronologically comes before tape B40d/number 9.
On the ROV survey conducted in 1996/number 11 the tape is dated from the official source as 19/06/96 but it is cut so badly that it goes back in time by whole days to the 09/06/96, 26/04/96, 17/06/96, 11/06/96 and contains still images from a video pause during duplication.

Disengage reached the following conclusions:

There is a disturbing lack of continuity in the cassettes due to the large number of tape cuts. These tape cuts appear to have been made at different times and with different levels of competence. The cuts vary between very clean, single frame cuts with no interference on screen, to long pieces of interference and on several occasions the contents not only change location but go back in time and date. The worst example of this type of cut occurs on the most recent cassette from 1996 that jumps back in time nearly two months. Very few of the tape cuts that have been documented in this report occur in locations where victims could be or are located and they are not due to technical issues, leaving no apparent reason for their existence.
The fact that the tape cuts repeatedly occur in the same areas of the vessel on different cassettes from different times and dates does not allow us to generate full documentation of a very serious casualty. This is a particular concern as the areas that lack documentation are very important to the investigation and include the starboard mudline and car deck.
There is wide range of diver and ROV activity on and around the wreck site that is not detailed in the available footage. The time comparisons detailed in this report illustrate that the activity of some of the ROVs and divers visible on the tapes is not documented in its own right due to lack of tapes or tape cuts. On several occasions this undocumented activity is in areas where there is a lack of overall documentation, including the car deck and bow ramp.
Format problems resulting in poor duplication and footage quality hamper independent investigation of the official cassettes. The lack of format conversion during duplication has resulted in a large drop in quality, combined with the tape cuts it has meant that reaching conclusions from the tapes and still images has been far more difficult, sometimes impossible.

The complete report is attached as Enclosure 34.6.434.