Recipient

International Maritime Organization

Pin Request correction

First report 22 Feb 2019•Latest report 22 Feb 2019

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · International transport body. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from International Maritime Organization linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    Jeremy Sutch · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Jeremy Sutch, a trainee driller aboard the MV Platinum Explorer, was crushed by a Riser Feeding Machine and later died in hospital from blunt chest trauma. His evacuation to shore was delayed by difficulties using a wheelchair-type extraction stretcher, raising concerns about crew familiarity, suitable equipment, and the lack of specific evacuation drills for casualties who must remain seated.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to International Maritime Organization; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of training drills using the wheelchair extraction stretcher

    Wider context from the report

    “In evidence it was heard that there had never been an evacuation drill undertaken on board using an extraction chair (a basket type stretcher and mannequin always being used). Further, the captain said in his 42 years at sea he had never seen a medical evacuation drill, or real medical evacuation using a wheelchair type extraction chair. The fact that the crew were unfamiliar with the wheelchair extraction stretcher needed in Jeremy’s case, led to the follow. • Unlike a basket stretcher the wheelchair extraction stretcher had no independent lifting points so could not be lowered to the tender by crane. • It therefore was necessary to lower the wheelchair in the crane work basket. • The wheelchair stretcher would not fit in the crane work basket and had to be dynamically modified in order for it to fit. • The crane work basket was too large and heavy to be manoeuvred into the rear of the waiting tender (which was fibreglass and risked damage). • The crane work basket was therefore lowered onto the roof of the tender wheel house. • The wheelchair stretcher would not fit down the spiral stairs leading to the passenger/casualty space inside the tender. • Initially the tender tried to make shore with Jeremy on the roof of the wheel house but the handrail began to give way in heavy-seas so the tender had to return to the lee ward side of the MV Platinum Explorer. • Despite his injuries Jeremy had to physically lower himself one step at a time into the passenger space of the tender before he could be taken ashore to receive medical attention. It was clear from the evidence that the issues identified above led to delay in Jeremy’s medical evacuation. It was also clear that without Jeremy’s own personal strength and determination he would not have been able to get inside the tender to be taken ashore. It was confirmed by a forensic pathologist at the inquest, that in his opinion Jeremy’s injuries were not survivable and that any delay in his medical evacuation did not affect the tragic outcome of this case. That said, I am concerned that should a similar situation arise with a casualty whose injuries may be survivable, their chance of survival would be reduced by the delays caused by the difficulties identified in this case. I am also concerned that other captains on other ships may be unaware of the difficulties posed in the medical evacuation of a casualty when The Ship Captain’s Medical Guide dictates that they must be kept in a seated position. I am further concerned by the apparent lack of knowledge of this type of casualty extraction device, which in turn resulted in an apparent lack of training drills designed specifically with its use in mind. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to International Maritime Organization; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of casualty evacuation arrangements to enable timely transfer of a seated casualty

    Wider context from the report

    “In evidence it was heard that there had never been an evacuation drill undertaken on board using an extraction chair (a basket type stretcher and mannequin always being used). Further, the captain said in his 42 years at sea he had never seen a medical evacuation drill, or real medical evacuation using a wheelchair type extraction chair. The fact that the crew were unfamiliar with the wheelchair extraction stretcher needed in Jeremy’s case, led to the follow. • Unlike a basket stretcher the wheelchair extraction stretcher had no independent lifting points so could not be lowered to the tender by crane. • It therefore was necessary to lower the wheelchair in the crane work basket. • The wheelchair stretcher would not fit in the crane work basket and had to be dynamically modified in order for it to fit. • The crane work basket was too large and heavy to be manoeuvred into the rear of the waiting tender (which was fibreglass and risked damage). • The crane work basket was therefore lowered onto the roof of the tender wheel house. • The wheelchair stretcher would not fit down the spiral stairs leading to the passenger/casualty space inside the tender. • Initially the tender tried to make shore with Jeremy on the roof of the wheel house but the handrail began to give way in heavy-seas so the tender had to return to the lee ward side of the MV Platinum Explorer. • Despite his injuries Jeremy had to physically lower himself one step at a time into the passenger space of the tender before he could be taken ashore to receive medical attention. It was clear from the evidence that the issues identified above led to delay in Jeremy’s medical evacuation. It was also clear that without Jeremy’s own personal strength and determination he would not have been able to get inside the tender to be taken ashore. It was confirmed by a forensic pathologist at the inquest, that in his opinion Jeremy’s injuries were not survivable and that any delay in his medical evacuation did not affect the tragic outcome of this case. That said, I am concerned that should a similar situation arise with a casualty whose injuries may be survivable, their chance of survival would be reduced by the delays caused by the difficulties identified in this case. I am also concerned that other captains on other ships may be unaware of the difficulties posed in the medical evacuation of a casualty when The Ship Captain’s Medical Guide dictates that they must be kept in a seated position. I am further concerned by the apparent lack of knowledge of this type of casualty extraction device, which in turn resulted in an apparent lack of training drills designed specifically with its use in mind. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to International Maritime Organization; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure captains are aware of the difficulties of evacuating a seated casualty

    Wider context from the report

    “In evidence it was heard that there had never been an evacuation drill undertaken on board using an extraction chair (a basket type stretcher and mannequin always being used). Further, the captain said in his 42 years at sea he had never seen a medical evacuation drill, or real medical evacuation using a wheelchair type extraction chair. The fact that the crew were unfamiliar with the wheelchair extraction stretcher needed in Jeremy’s case, led to the follow. • Unlike a basket stretcher the wheelchair extraction stretcher had no independent lifting points so could not be lowered to the tender by crane. • It therefore was necessary to lower the wheelchair in the crane work basket. • The wheelchair stretcher would not fit in the crane work basket and had to be dynamically modified in order for it to fit. • The crane work basket was too large and heavy to be manoeuvred into the rear of the waiting tender (which was fibreglass and risked damage). • The crane work basket was therefore lowered onto the roof of the tender wheel house. • The wheelchair stretcher would not fit down the spiral stairs leading to the passenger/casualty space inside the tender. • Initially the tender tried to make shore with Jeremy on the roof of the wheel house but the handrail began to give way in heavy-seas so the tender had to return to the lee ward side of the MV Platinum Explorer. • Despite his injuries Jeremy had to physically lower himself one step at a time into the passenger space of the tender before he could be taken ashore to receive medical attention. It was clear from the evidence that the issues identified above led to delay in Jeremy’s medical evacuation. It was also clear that without Jeremy’s own personal strength and determination he would not have been able to get inside the tender to be taken ashore. It was confirmed by a forensic pathologist at the inquest, that in his opinion Jeremy’s injuries were not survivable and that any delay in his medical evacuation did not affect the tragic outcome of this case. That said, I am concerned that should a similar situation arise with a casualty whose injuries may be survivable, their chance of survival would be reduced by the delays caused by the difficulties identified in this case. I am also concerned that other captains on other ships may be unaware of the difficulties posed in the medical evacuation of a casualty when The Ship Captain’s Medical Guide dictates that they must be kept in a seated position. I am further concerned by the apparent lack of knowledge of this type of casualty extraction device, which in turn resulted in an apparent lack of training drills designed specifically with its use in mind. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026