Polar Survival: Minimum Compliance vs. True Protection

The IMO Polar Code was established to protect lives in the world’s harshest maritime environments, where cold-water immersion can lead to hypothermia and death in minutes. Its survival provisions require operators to ensure that every person on board can withstand exposure for up to five days, even in freezing temperatures and unpredictable conditions. These requirements exist because polar emergencies—such as capsizing, flooding, or delayed rescue—often occur far from immediate help, making thermal protection critical. While some operators attempt to comply using Personal Survival Kits (PSKs) or Group Survival Kits (GSKs), these solutions assume ideal scenarios: dry conditions, intact shelters, and functioning group gear. In reality, chaos and water ingress quickly undermine these assumptions, leaving crews vulnerable and survival times drastically reduced.

1. Polar Code Context: Why PSKs and GSKs Exist

The IMO Polar Code mandates survival provisions for vessels operating in polar waters. To provide flexibility, it allows compliance through:

• PSKs (Personal Survival Kits): Individual kits with thermal clothing and accessories.

• GSKs (Group Survival Kits): Shared shelters with stoves, sleeping bags, and communal gear.

Operators often choose these kits because:

• Lower cost and weight compared to immersion suits.

• Space efficiency on vessels.

• Assumption of ideal conditions—quick access to lifeboats or dry shelters.

2. Limitations of PSK/GSK Use

While PSKs and GSKs technically meet minimum compliance, they rely on perfect conditions:

• Survivors remain dry and grouped together.

• Equipment functions as intended.

• Weather remains stable.

In reality:

• Capsizing, flooding, or separation often leave crew wet and exposed.

• Moisture and wind degrade insulation.

• Compression reduces thermal efficiency.

• Group dependency creates single points of failure.

Result: Survival time collapses in chaos, cold, and isolation.

3. Water Ingress: The Hidden Threat

Standard neoprene immersion suits are vulnerable to water ingress through zippers and seals. When water enters:

• Insulation compresses and loses trapped air, reducing CLO dramatically.

• Heat loss accelerates via conduction.

• Survival time drops from hours to potentially less than one hour in freezing water.

Arctic 10+ Advantage: This is why sealed systems like Arctic 10+ are critical—they maintain insulation integrity even under prolonged immersion. Arctic 10+ has been tested with four times the allowed water ingress under IMO standards, with no impact on thermal performance—even at –30 °C.

4. The Heat Loss Reality

Cold water accelerates heat loss 25× faster than air. Without sealed insulation, body heat drops below safe levels in minutes.

CLO Values and Survival Time

Clothing / Suit Type	CLO Value	Survival Time in 2°C Water
T-shirt	0.09	~30 min
Winter coat	0.70	~1.5 hrs
Standard immersion suit	~1 CLO	~6 hrs
Arctic 10+	4.87 CLO	14+ hrs
Arctic 25+	>5.36 CLO	Multi-day

References:

• Hayes & Cohen (1987): CLO vs survival correlation.

• Shender & Todd (DTIC/NAVAIR): Thermal manikin studies confirm immersed CLO drives survival time.

• CLO definition: 1 CLO = insulation for comfort at 21°C in still air.

5. Why Arctic 10+ Is Different

Unlike kits, Arctic 10+ delivers sealed water protection and 4.87 CLO insulation, plus three patented features:

Reflective Bubble Insulation

• Creates multiple thermal barriers.

• Traps radiant heat and slows conduction/convection.

• Maintains a stable microclimate even in 2°C water.

Integrated Splash Tent

• Shields against wind chill and spray.

• Reduces evaporative cooling.

• Converts the suit into a floating refuge, not just flotation.

Batwing Configuration

• Purpose: Allows survival tasks without exposing the core.

• How It Works: Wearer can partially open the suit from inside and extend bare hands while keeping torso and legs insulated.

• Why It Matters: Enables eating, drinking, first aid, and signaling without sacrificing thermal protection—critical for multi-day survival.

6. Real-World Case Studies

UL Certification Success

Arctic 10+ passed UL Solutions testing for buoyancy, insulation, and durability—exceeding SOLAS and Polar Code standards.

FV Alaska Ranger (2008)

Crew in neoprene suits survived only hours in freezing Bering Sea waters; four died after ~5 hours despite rescue efforts—highlighting the limits of standard suits.

SINTEF Arctic Study

Tests revealed deficiencies in conventional suits under Arctic conditions, leading to design improvements later adopted in advanced suits like Arctic 10+.

Bottom Line

• PSKs/GSKs: Minimum compliance, dependent on perfect conditions.

• Standard suits: Vulnerable to water ingress and limited insulation.

• Arctic 10+: Engineered for chaos, cold, and isolation—delivering certainty, not hope.

Call to Action

Ensure your fleet meets Polar Code compliance and achieves real-world survival capability.[Contact us for a demo or quote →]