22 Feb 2019 Jeremy Sutch · Prevention of Future Deaths report Suffolk
View report summary
Concerns raised 3 Lack of training drills using the wheelchair extraction stretcher View source Failure of casualty evacuation arrangements to enable timely transfer of a seated casualty View source Failure to ensure captains are aware of the difficulties of evacuating a seated casualty View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
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 Vantage Drilling Company; 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 Vantage Drilling Company; 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 Vantage Drilling Company; 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
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Include medivac chair-type stretcher evacuation in drills every six months, with lessons captured and compliance audited through the safety management system.
Verbatim wording from the response “Since the event involving Mr Sutch, evacuation using wheelchairs have been included in evacuation drills (see below).” Source location 2019-0065-Response-by-Vantage-Drilling-Company
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Vantage could not guarantee faster patient extraction because response speed depends on external factors it cannot control, including traffic, weather and demand.
Verbatim wording from the response “I. Vantage arranged for a medic to be on the vessel despite this not being a requirement;
II. Vantage’s MERP involved a recognised international agency as a partner (Vantage were doing things properly);
III. Vantage are not aware of any advice or industry practice to suggest other operators involved in similar operations, in similar environments, have been taking a different approach;
IV. Patient extraction from a whole range of occupational settings, even ashore, is often compromised and at least challenging. Speed of response, whilst always desirable, cannot always be achieved or guaranteed because not all factors which impact on speed of response can be controlled. Even ashore, ambulances may be delayed by traffic or weather conditions or simply by demand exceeding supply;
V. Air ambulances are not a state funded provision in all areas, less still an infinite resource;
VI.” Source location 2019-0065-Response-by-Vantage-Drilling-Company
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Vantage considered its medic provision and recognised-agency emergency response plan an adequate response to the evacuation risks.
Verbatim wording from the response “I. Vantage arranged for a medic to be on the vessel despite this not being a requirement;
II. Vantage’s MERP involved a recognised international agency as a partner (Vantage were doing things properly);
III. Vantage are not aware of any advice or industry practice to suggest other operators involved in similar operations, in similar environments, have been taking a different approach;
IV. Patient extraction from a whole range of occupational settings, even ashore, is often compromised and at least challenging. Speed of response, whilst always desirable, cannot always be achieved or guaranteed because not all factors which impact on speed of response can be controlled. Even ashore, ambulances may be delayed by traffic or weather conditions or simply by demand exceeding supply;
V. Air ambulances are not a state funded provision in all areas, less still an infinite resource;
VI.” Source location 2019-0065-Response-by-Vantage-Drilling-Company
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation The incident was highly unusual, and no industry advice or practice indicated that similar operators should take a different approach.
Verbatim wording from the response “Since this event, Vantage has reflected upon all of the facts of the incident as identified by various investigations (including the Coroner’s own) in order to learn as much as possible. Vantage is always concerned to ensure that its evacuation procedures are fit for purpose, affording those injured the best opportunity to reach expert medical attention in the most timely fashion. It is not possible to foresee and anticipate every possible scenario (hindsight provides no illumination on the situation) and it is important to recognise that what happened on board the Platinum Explorer was fact specific and highly unusual, being outside the experience of every experienced Mariner.” Source location 2019-0065-Response-by-Vantage-Drilling-Company
Open published response
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations