What Chile Got Right: How DIRECTEMAR's Antarctic LSA Guidance Points the Way for Other Flag States

Published by White Glacier Manufacturing Corp.

In February 2026, at the port of Punta Arenas — the principal gateway to Antarctic waters in the Southern Hemisphere — Chile's maritime authority took a step that no other flag state had yet taken in practice.

Roberto Alfaro Pérez, Head of the Maritime Inspections Service at DIRSOMAR, Chile's Directorate General of Maritime Territory and Merchant Marine, committed to PSC verification of polar immersion suit thermal adequacy against the goal-based requirements of Polar Code Chapter 8. Not certification compliance in the traditional sense — not a stamp on a certificate. Actual verification: does the life-saving equipment aboard this vessel provide thermal protection adequate for the Maximum Expected Time of Rescue in the Antarctic operating area this vessel is entering?

That commitment matters far beyond Chile. It matters because it is the first documented instance of a maritime authority operationalising the Polar Code's goal-based LSA framework at the port state control level — and because every other flag state and PSC authority with jurisdiction over polar operations will eventually follow the same logic.

Why Punta Arenas Is the Right Place for This to Start

Punta Arenas is not a peripheral port. It is the last port of call for a significant proportion of the vessels entering Antarctic waters each season — expedition cruise ships, scientific research vessels, national Antarctic program supply vessels, and fishing vessels operating in the Southern Ocean. The vessels clearing Punta Arenas collectively carry thousands of crew and passengers into some of the most remote and demanding operating conditions on the planet.

The Chilean Navy has direct operational experience of Antarctic SAR response. DIRECTEMAR understands, from its own operational history, what rescue timelines in Antarctic waters actually look like — and what the consequences are when life-saving equipment is not adequate for those timelines. The February 2026 PSC commitment reflects that operational knowledge applied to the regulatory framework the Polar Code provides.

What the Polar Code Framework Requires PSC Officers to Ask

The IMO Polar Code Chapter 8 establishes a goal-based requirement: life-saving appliances in polar waters must provide thermal protection sufficient to support survival for the Maximum Expected Time of Rescue. In remote Antarctic operating areas, that METR commonly extends to five days or beyond.

The goal-based framework is not self-executing. It requires someone — a flag state, a Recognized Organization, a PSC authority — to ask the operative question: does the equipment aboard this vessel actually meet the functional requirement for this operating area?

For most of the nine years since the Polar Code entered into force, that question has not been asked at the port state control level in any systematic way. Vessels have been cleared for polar operations on the basis of LSA certificates that were never designed to address polar conditions. The certification standard — MSC.81(70) — predates the Polar Code and was not developed to assess survivability under simultaneous freezing water, sub-zero air temperature, and wind chill conditions. It does not assess five-day survivability. It was not intended to.

DIRECTEMAR's February 2026 commitment changes that calculus for vessels clearing Punta Arenas. It establishes, at the port state level, that a certificate is necessary but not sufficient — that the goal-based question will be asked, and that an answer will be required.

The Lloyd's Register Parallel

DIRECTEMAR's PSC commitment does not stand alone. In February 2026, Lloyd's Register formally acknowledged — in Case #00845510, through Dean A. Biskupovich, Global Technical Competence Centre Americas — that standard immersion suits may not consistently ensure five-day survivability under realistic polar conditions, and that the appropriate pathway for addressing the gap is a submission to the IMO Maritime Safety Committee through a national administration or industry association.

Two of the most significant voices in international maritime safety — a sovereign PSC authority with direct Antarctic operational experience, and the world's largest maritime classification society — reached the same conclusion in the same month. The gap between conventional LSA certification and Polar Code goal-based compliance is real, it is documented, and it is being acted upon at the institutional level.

What This Means for Other Flag States and Operators

DIRECTEMAR's commitment establishes a precedent. PSC authorities in other polar gateway ports — Longyearbyen, Tromsø, Ushuaia, Nome, Murmansk, Hobart — are now on notice that a peer authority has operationalised the goal-based framework at the inspection level. The question is not whether other PSC authorities will follow. It is when, and whether operators will be prepared when they do.

The Norwegian Maritime Authority has formally invited submission of a proposal on Polar Code Chapter 8 LSA requirements through the IMO process, confirming that the regulatory conversation is active at the flag state level. Transport Canada has engaged the question through its Arctic and Large Vessels division. The UK MCA has acknowledged the Norway pathway as the appropriate route for IMO submission. The regulatory direction across multiple flag states is convergent.

For operators, the practical implication is straightforward. The standard of LSA due diligence that satisfies a PSC inspection in a polar gateway port is rising. It was always the case that the Polar Code's goal-based framework required more than a certificate. It is now the case that at least one PSC authority is applying that standard in practice — and that others will follow.

The time to address the gap is before the inspection, not during it.

The Evidence Base That Satisfies the Question

When DIRECTEMAR or any other PSC authority asks the goal-based question — does this equipment provide thermal protection adequate for this operating area's METR — there is only one category of evidence that answers it: independent test data generated under conditions representative of the actual operating environment.

The Arctic 10+ and Arctic 25+ are supported by independent test documentation from Ergopro's facility in Trondheim — six hours at 0°C water, −20°C air, 10 m/s wind, −30°C wind chill, with 500 grams of water added to the interior of the suit before immersion. Core temperature drop: 0.4°C. Test terminated at the ethical limit. Pool frozen solid. Ergopro's assessment: the subject could have continued safely for a considerably longer period.

That documentation is available to any operator, DPA, Recognized Organization, or PSC authority that requests it.

Chile asked the right question. The evidence exists to answer it.

For independent test documentation, fleet specifications, and Polar Code Chapter 8 compliance support, contact White Glacier Manufacturing Corp.: djacobson@whiteglacier.com