PFD report

Jeremy Sutch · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Feb 2019•Suffolk

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Lack of training drills using the wheelchair extraction stretcher
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate training for emergency patient extraction
  2. Failure of casualty evacuation arrangements to enable timely transfer of a seated casualty
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency evacuation arrangements for people requiring assisted removal
  3. Failure to ensure captains are aware of the difficulties of evacuating a seated casualty
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. Action

    Include medivac chair-type stretcher evacuation in drills every six months, with lessons captured and compliance audited through the safety management system.

    Stated by Vantage Drilling CompanyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Vantage could not guarantee faster patient extraction because response speed depends on external factors it cannot control, including traffic, weather and demand.

    Stated by Vantage Drilling CompanyUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do 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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate training for emergency patient extraction.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do 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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency evacuation arrangements for people requiring assisted removal.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do 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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2019

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
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2019

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. 1

    Arrange for a medic to be present on the vessel.

    Stated by Vantage Drilling CompanyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2019.
  2. 2

    Update emergency manuals to specify the different stretcher types available and potentially required on board.

    Stated by Vantage Drilling CompanyStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2019.

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

Arrange for a medic to be present on the vessel.

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
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2019

Open published response

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

Update emergency manuals to specify the different stretcher types available and potentially required on board.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1) Updated HSE Manual dated 7 March 2019. Please refer in particular to Section 4.25.7 which includes specific reference to the different stretcher types which may be required to be used.”

Source location

2019-0065-Response-by-Vantage-Drilling-Company
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2019

Open published response
Back to top

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

Official responses located
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026