# PCT ORCA class vessels



## Marlin Spike (21 Dec 2012)

The primary role of these vessels is “to conduct basic and advanced at sea training for Regular and Reserve Force naval personnel


----------



## Marlin Spike (21 Dec 2012)

These vessels operate year round in B.C. coastal waters and are frequent visitors in many of the smaller ports both on the Mainland and around Vancouver Island. In addition to their training mission, our naval tenders support regional community relations by appearing in local festivals and maritime events. While not specifically assigned an operational role, these vessels patrol coastal waters reporting suspicious activity, pollution infractions, and fishing violations. They are also frequently tasked for search and rescue operations or providing assistance to boaters in distress.  Operation roles are on the rise, due to increased capabilities of the ORCA class vessels.

Regular force Boatswains, Engineers and Naval communicators personnel are employed at PCTS. In addition to their responsibilities associated with maintaining and operating the naval tenders, PCTS personnel perform a pivotal training role in sharing their experience and skills with Junior Officer and Non-Commissioned Member trainees.


----------



## Tyson Fox (21 Dec 2012)

They sure do, but If I may ask, why are you bringing this up out of the blue?


----------



## Pat in Halifax (22 Dec 2012)

I have heard nothing but good after the fact so it is a wonder to me why we always have to actively solicit RegF sailors for some of the training. I realize it is easy for me to say now after bouncing around on various ship classes the last 30 years but if this were available early in my career, I would have been all over it. The training is not overly complex, the ports are ones where even a KIN class may not go so they are unique and were there a large enough pool of ORCA qual'd people in the req'd trades, one could almost pick and choose their 'trip'.
But then this is from a 50 year old stoker reminiscing about the 'good old days' at Christmas time!!!

Pat


----------



## Marlin Spike (22 Dec 2012)

Shipwreck said:
			
		

> They sure do, but If I may ask, why are you bringing this up out of the blue?



I brought it up because I look after them and thought. I could give an educated response to people's thoughts


----------



## Marlin Spike (22 Dec 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> I have heard nothing but good after the fact so it is a wonder to me why we always have to actively solicit RegF sailors for some of the training. I realize it is easy for me to say now after bouncing around on various ship classes the last 30 years but if this were available early in my career, I would have been all over it. The training is not overly complex, the ports are ones where even a KIN class may not go so they are unique and were there a large enough pool of ORCA qual'd people in the req'd trades, one could almost pick and choose their 'trip'.
> But then this is from a 50 year old stoker reminiscing about the 'good old days' at Christmas time!!!
> 
> Pat



Pat I've tried to crew these with naval reserves and it is like pulling teeth.  The vessels are actually very complex and trying to man them are a challenge


----------



## Stoker (22 Dec 2012)

Marlin Spike said:
			
		

> Pat I've tried to crew these with naval reserves and it is like pulling teeth.  The vessels are actually very complex and trying to man them are a challenge



How come?, I know some reserve units do Orca trips and they do training to get tickets and such. The manning is supposed to the mandate of the regular force is it not?


----------



## navymich (22 Dec 2012)

Marlin Spike said:
			
		

> Pat I've tried to crew these with naval reserves and it is like pulling teeth.  The vessels are actually very complex and trying to man them are a challenge



I'm just trying to clarify what you have written, because I might be reading it wrong.  

Is it like pulling teeth because you aren't able to get enough bodies to crew them?  And when you say that it is a challenge to man them because they are complex, do you mean that there aren't enough trained bodies to be able to handle the positions?  Or do you mean something different with both of your statements?


----------



## Cronicbny (22 Dec 2012)

airmich said:
			
		

> I'm just trying to clarify what you have written, because I might be reading it wrong.
> 
> Is it like pulling teeth because you aren't able to get enough bodies to crew them?  And when you say that it is a challenge to man them because they are complex, do you mean that there aren't enough trained bodies to be able to handle the positions?  Or do you mean something different with both of your statements?



I too am interested.


----------



## Nuggs (23 Dec 2012)

I've sailed as crew on these boats 3 times for MARS 4 courses.

The first time was with an NTS supplied Engineer / Buffer, while the rest of the crew (including me) were non-NETP trained PATS.
The last 2 times were with skimmer supplied crews.

All three times there was never a complaint out of any crew member I can remember. Everyone loved the sails, and most of us volunteered year after year.

The only person I can think of that was stressed was Engines. I don't think I sailed one that head the shitter work properly.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (23 Dec 2012)

I think the issue stems around the "one man, one job" stigma. There was no change to trade's Establishments to man these. What this means is that if a Unit gives up a person for training and subsequent operational employment, the position of the parent unit cannot be backfilled-similar to someone being on a TCat. Like any other organization, roughly 15-18% of the Establishment is not available at any given time for a variety of reasons (course, TCat, leave, incremental tasking etc).
Sailors generally (like most of the population) don't like change even though the world around them may be in a constant state of flux. Though ship's sailing schedules are not announced, there is comfort in knowing you will be with a group of people you are familiar with no matter what comes up. Yes, those that have done this have spoken praise though because numbers (for some of the posits) are limited, some people are pier-jumping and that is never a positive motivator. 
I know for Mar Eng, the trade targetted MS who would not be getting their QL6 in the coming year and these only from non high readiness units. There is still a bit of an issue as though the School, say, is not a high readiness unit, it is a high priority posting. If you take a staff member from a section, what impact does their absence have and as much as some may question, many sections (in the MSE community anyway) are made up of various SMEs. For ships in DWP/HCM, crew loads are brought down to minimums (I think the number is around 58-60) with their staff actually posted to other Units.
I think the detracting factor is the loss of control over one's immediate future which is human nature, especially if you are given an option. Some people I have talked to have said they would like to try it but there own ship is going to the Gulf or doing an OP NANOOK or a GLD and they don't want to miss those.
I don't have an answer. I am not sure of the east-west numbers but because these are west coast units, that too may be a factor. I know (again for Mar Eng), the CMs/OMs will be touting this during this year's rounds of briefings/interviews and there are also plans for other ways to 'motivate' RegF stokers.
Maybe the new year will bring a change-who knows.
Pat


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Dec 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> and there are also plans for other ways to 'motivate' RegF stokers.



Knowing how this type of talk has some times turned out in the past, I would be very affraid.

This said, it seems to me that a good start would be to recognize that regardless the fact that they are only "tenders", these little ships entail a lot of responsibility for the MS Eng that steps into what is really a CERA job from the second the lines are let go to the moment they get back to Esquimalt.

Two ways of recognizing this fact could be to:

1. Pick this posting to re-introduce to the Navy the concept of "charge" money.

2. Make a reasonably long spell (more than a one week jump in but probably less than 6 month) in the job lead to automatic loading on the "6" course for all but those not achieving average and above in their PER.

Just my thoughts.

Merry Christmas all!


----------



## Stoker (27 Dec 2012)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Knowing how this type of talk has some times turned out in the past, I would be very affraid.
> 
> This said, it seems to me that a good start would be to recognize that regardless the fact that they are only "tenders", these little ships entail a lot of responsibility for the MS Eng that steps into what is really a CERA job from the second the lines are let go to the moment they get back to Esquimalt.
> 
> ...



Despite what our Bosn SME has stated on this thread about getting Reserves to man the ORCA's as "pulling teeth" it was never the mandate of the Naval Reserve to man ORCA's, only the KINGSTON Class. That being said reserves can get their Engineering tickets and units do weekend sails as a way to maintain and learn new skills. It is true that some reserves do not actively seek ORCA time and some of it has to do with poor treatment by PCTS personnel.
As Pat has said getting MAR ENG to man the ORCA is problematic at times, especially with other things like the CERT 2 training on the KINGSTON Class and the overseas exchange programs. As a way to entice the MAR ENG, the new qualifications the MAR ENG are getting counted towards a better standing on the merit board. As for charge pay I would love to see that as the reserves has been trying to get that for C tickets on the KINGSTON class for years.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (27 Dec 2012)

The hope is that the "...plans for other ways to 'motivate' RegF stokers" will not be perceived as negative, in fact quite the opposite. OGBD, you are correct in that the lone Mar Eng or MESO (MS Eng is the Officer trade name) has an awful lot of responsibility resting on his or her shoulders. And CS, I agree, the Res were never mandated to man these...but I dare say, niether were the RegF. I would LOVE to see the SOR for this vessel to find out where the crews were intended to come from. I don't think as much planning went into these vessels as usually does for a major procurement..unless somone who was part of the project is on here and may care to chime in?? I shudder to think how these things would possibly be manned if we did not have 5 Halifax class out of routine and in various degrees of being minimally manned right now for HCM FELEX.

But alas, we WILL man them and we WILL make things happen like we always do. I just hope we don't have some sort of major breakdown or worse to make some realize that we are at the edge of asking people to accomplish too much with limited experience, training and therefore confidence.

Pat


----------



## Stoker (27 Dec 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> The hope is that the "...plans for other ways to 'motivate' RegF stokers" will not be perceived as negative, in fact quite the opposite. OGBD, you are correct in that the lone Mar Eng or MESO (MS Eng is the Officer trade name) has an awful lot of responsibility resting on his or her shoulders. And CS, I agree, the Res were never mandated to man these...but I dare say, niether were the RegF. I would LOVE to see the SOR for this vessel to find out where the crews were intended to come from. I don't think as much planning went into these vessels as usually does for a major procurement..unless somone who was part of the project is on here and may care to chime in?? I shudder to think how these things would possibly be manned if we did not have 5 Halifax class out of routine and in various degrees of being minimally manned right now for HCM FELEX.
> 
> But alas, we WILL man them and we WILL make things happen like we always do. I just hope we don't have some sort of major breakdown or worse to make some realize that we are at the edge of asking people to accomplish too much with limited experience, training and therefore confidence.
> 
> Pat



Pat, when I was at PCC I was sitting in a meeting when we were discussing the OCRA manning challenges. There wasn't really any SOR on manning, but of course they had to come from somewhere didn't they? PCC Esquimalt signed on quite readily, seeing that the hulls are actually there!


----------



## Pat in Halifax (27 Dec 2012)

Part of the SOR should have mentioned manning even if it was only one line. I might do some digging through RDIMS when I get back to work-I am curious now. I suspect it may say something along the lines of "...manning will be in line with that which was in place for the vessels ORCA is intended to replace..." I know since the Halifax class was not overly specific, planners have paid more attention to crewing requirements. Even though CSC is many years off, to avoid any hicups, an ad hoc WG is addressing this alone. I can see it now though-both east coast Schools are getting Establishment reviews in 2013 (I suspect CFFSE is too) and Halifax class will be getting one post HCM (actually first review since the class was introduced in the early 1990s) as well and I bet we find exactly the number of people required to man ORCAs!
I think  we need to change our thinking about how we crew a ship and though I don`t relish the thought, maybe specialist `teams` will be developed with ____ Departmental Team 3 sailing on board HMCS____ and Team 2 on HMCS _____. It will take away the tie to the Unit but from a cost effective standpoint, it may be the way to go. In the RCN, crewing currently accounts for almost 60% of the operating costs which is much higher than the standard in the past and with that of other Allied Navies.
I know some changes are coming as we transition to a new updated Fleet (post-HCM Halifax Class, AOPS, JSS and CSC) and it will be something that we will just have to adjust to. We have done it before and I am sure can do it again.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Dec 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> the lone Mar Eng or MESO (MS Eng is the Officer trade name)



Bit of a mix up on my part. I wanted to refer to rank - as I understand that the lone ERA is of MS rank - It should have read "MSER Engineer".


----------



## gwp (27 Dec 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> But alas, we WILL man them and we WILL make things happen like we always do. I just hope we don't have some sort of major breakdown or worse to make some realize that we are at the edge of asking people to accomplish too much with limited experience, training and therefore confidence. Pat



Fifteen year old sea cadets stand engineering watch aboard the ORCA Class. 




> While some youth spent the summer sleeping in, playing video games, or lounging at the lake, Chilliwack teen Katherine Mcwilliams was working hard for the navy.
> 
> For eight weeks, the 15-year-old cadet worked on heavy machinery aboard the Royal Canadian Navy's Patrol Class Tender (PCT) vessels as part of the Sea Cadet Marine Engineer Course at Her Majesty's Canadian Ship (HMCS) Quadra's Cadet Summer Training Centre in Comox, B.C..
> 
> ...



http://www.theprogress.com/community/167861475.html


----------



## Pat in Halifax (27 Dec 2012)

That may be true but that is not what we are talking about here. The term "Second Engineer" is a TC term and not RCN and in fact does not exist on ANY RCN vessel (those crewed by CF personnel anyway). This is great and I applaud those cadets who do this as a stepping stone to potentially joining the RCN in a technical trade, however...their presence is NOT a necessity on board whereas the MarEng is.
OGBD-understood-There are also LS and may possibly be the odd PO2 in the future.

By the way, BZ to Ms. Mcwilliams!!


----------



## Stoker (27 Dec 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> That may be true but that is not what we are talking about here. The term "Second Engineer" is a TC term and not RCN and in fact does not exist on ANY RCN vessel (those crewed by CF personnel anyway). This is great and I applaud those cadets who do this as a stepping stone to potentially joining the RCN in a technical trade, however...their presence is NOT a necessity on board whereas the MarEng is.
> OGBD-understood-There are also LS and may possibly be the odd PO2 in the future.
> 
> By the way, BZ to Ms. Mcwilliams!!



I think we have a Chief or two that have their ORCA qualification.


----------



## Grimey (28 Dec 2012)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> The hope is that the "...plans for other ways to 'motivate' RegF stokers" will not be perceived as negative, in fact quite the opposite. OGBD, you are correct in that the lone Mar Eng or MESO (MS Eng is the Officer trade name) has an awful lot of responsibility resting on his or her shoulders. And CS, I agree, the Res were never mandated to man these...but I dare say, niether were the RegF. I would LOVE to see the SOR for this vessel to find out where the crews were intended to come from. I don't think as much planning went into these vessels as usually does for a major procurement..unless somone who was part of the project is on here and may care to chime in?? I shudder to think how these things would possibly be manned if we did not have 5 Halifax class out of routine and in various degrees of being minimally manned right now for HCM FELEX.
> 
> But alas, we WILL man them and we WILL make things happen like we always do. I just hope we don't have some sort of major breakdown or worse to make some realize that we are at the edge of asking people to accomplish too much with limited experience, training and therefore confidence.
> 
> Pat



Pat,

We had a CPO2 on this coast who went blue in the face trying to deal with the ORCA manning situation.  I talked with him when i was Snr DI in Ottawa and, as you suspect, manning levels and an establishment change wasn't given the remotest consideration.  This is the main reason that the CPO2 now calls himself Mr.  His line of reasoning was that a Bay class minesweeper of 2400 combined SHP had a Mar Eng Dept of 12.  The ORCA with half again as much power has a killick Cert 2 playing MSEO/ChEng/CHT with, if he's lucky, an AMOC roundsman.  Not the greatest situation to be in when the fit hits the shan.


----------



## Stoker (28 Dec 2012)

Grimey said:
			
		

> Pat,
> 
> We had a CPO2 on this coast who went blue in the face trying to deal with the ORCA manning situation.  I talked with him when i was Snr DI in Ottawa and, as you suspect, manning levels and an establishment change wasn't given the remotest consideration.  This is the main reason that the CPO2 now calls himself Mr.  His line of reasoning was that a Bay class minesweeper of 2400 combined SHP had a Mar Eng Dept of 12.  The ORCA with half again as much power has a killick Cert 2 playing MSEO/ChEng/CHT with, if he's lucky, an AMOC roundsman.  Not the greatest situation to be in when the fit hits the shan.



That's not a fair analogy as the Bay class was a more labor intensive ship with few if any automated systems. The ORCA is a automated ship with redundant systems with a return home capability that  doesn't go as far afield as the Bay Class ever did and all PM2 and PM3 maintenance and correctives are handled by ISSC. If something breaks they go to the nearest port and support from PCT comes to the ship to fix it.
As for the MSEO/ChEng/CHT comments, its true its still a lot of responsibility to put on a LS.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Dec 2012)

If you guys don't mind a CADPAT-wearing aviator (who secretly yearns for a Nordhavn 47 for my retirement gift) asking some questions on the subject, it seems to me that automation aside, the ORCA is a significantly more complex vessel that would to my mind, require some kind of more formalized mechanical/systems engineering oversight (is that what you guys mean by an ERA?) compared to the YAGs.  

I know "size isn't everything", but an ORCA is about three times the displacement as a YAG, isn't it?  And a couple of Cat 3516s (interestingly, non-electonic, non-ACERT I noticed) is notably more "involved" than the twin Jimmy 6-71s of the YAG, which are about the most bullet-proof, simple marine engine out there.  Nothing against the 15 year-old Sea Cadet on engineering watch, but if one of the mains had an issue, what could the cadet do other than wake up the ERA?  What ratings does the cadet's ticket actually include? 

Years (a lot) ago, I had the pleasure (?) of rolling around in a YAG (including half a day out at the infamous W601 to help feed aquatic life) and  the YAG struck me as a decently-sized but very simple vessel.  I haven't been on an ORCA up close, but it looks a lot more involved to operate than the YAGs.

Re: PYs/dedicated pers.  I too am not surprised that there would be little written in to either the ORCA's SOR, or more likely its accompanying CONOP or Statement of Operating Intent (SOI), but folks who have done a round or two in NDHQ will know that money is actually secondary in relation to the most valuable commodity in the CF, the PY.  I would think exactly as Pat noted, that it would be "operated as the previous class it replaces" type of thing.

Regards
G2G

p.s.  Grimey noted that an ORCA has "half again" the power over the BAY-Class sweepers (2,400 SHP) - does that mean the 3516s are derated to 1,800SHP?


----------



## Stoker (28 Dec 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If you guys don't mind a CADPAT-wearing aviator (who secretly yearns for a Nordhavn 47 for my retirement gift) asking some questions on the subject, it seems to me that automation aside, the ORCA is a significantly more complex vessel that would to my mind, require some kind of more formalized mechanical/systems engineering oversight (is that what you guys mean by an ERA?) compared to the YAGs.
> 
> I know "size isn't everything", but an ORCA is about three times the displacement as a YAG, isn't it?  And a couple of Cat 3516s (interestingly, non-electonic, non-ACERT I noticed) is notably more "involved" than the twin Jimmy 6-71s of the YAG, which are about the most bullet-proof, simple marine engine out there.  Nothing against the 15 year-old Sea Cadet on engineering watch, but if one of the mains had an issue, what could the cadet do other than wake up the ERA?  What ratings does the cadet's ticket actually include?
> 
> ...



Your right, there really isn't any comparison between the two as both boats are worlds apart. The YAG's were good as they were simple to operate and maintain but had limitations such as no night steaming so they would anchor every night or come into a small port like Friday Harbor. The ORCA's were built so it was very similar in the way the bridge operated to the much larger CPF's and other class of ships. 
I would assume that a 15 year old Cadet is trained enough to take appropriate action if there is an Engineering emergency or Engineering difficulty but I wonder if that Kid is actually trained in Naval firefighting, damage control techniques.


----------



## chrisf (28 Dec 2012)

That's interesting... as somone who spends a lot of time cursing and swearing at a 3508 civi side (it's baby brother, the 3506, our emergency gen, is pretty well behaved, but still irritating to work on), it makes me wonder... did the navy print their own manuals for the engines, or did they go with the awful awful awful cat manuals?


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Dec 2012)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> That's interesting... as somone who spends a lot of time cursing and swearing at a 3508 civi side (it's baby brother, the 3506, our emergency gen, is pretty well behaved, but still irritating to work on), it makes me wonder... did the navy print their own manuals for the engines, or did they go with the awful awful awful cat manuals?



Sig Op, I love the sound of a kitty cat, but yes, their manuals are horrible.  :nod:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Dec 2012)

Forgive another aviator from weighing in, but, my understanding is that we (military personnel) do not fix or maintain the systems on the ORCA- it is all done by contractor.

Does that not impact how many PYs are required?


----------



## Stoker (28 Dec 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Forgive another aviator from weighing in, but, my understanding is that we (military personnel) do not fix or maintain the systems on the ORCA- it is all done by contractor.
> 
> Does that not impact how many PYs are required?



That's correct PM1 routines are done by the unit and the rest are covered by contractor.


----------



## gwp (28 Dec 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I would assume that a 15 year old Cadet is trained enough to take appropriate action if there is an Engineering emergency or Engineering difficulty but I wonder if that Kid is actually trained in Naval firefighting, damage control techniques.



The course consisted of seven weeks of challenging theoretical and practical learning, mechanical sketching, shipboard firefighting and damage control, engineering maintenance skills and emergency procedures.  The final week was spent preparing for, and appearing in front of a board of the Canadian Naval Marine Engineers to test their knowledge.

It is correct that a cadet is not the lead hand and is never deployed without a qualified adult as was the case in the YAG.  The course of instruction is the longest summer program offered in the cadet organization. 

The Navy has had a shortage in the trade for a while.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Dec 2012)

gwp said:
			
		

> The course consisted of seven weeks of challenging theoretical and practical learning, mechanical sketching, shipboard firefighting and damage control, engineering maintenance skills and emergency procedures.  The final week was spent preparing for, and appearing in front of a board of the Canadian Naval Marine Engineers to test their knowledge.



gwp, thanks for that.  Good to know there is a comprehensive curriculum to the course...nothing wrong with 15-year olds doing stuff...many kids who grew up on farms were likely already a few years experienced into helping their dad weld up and repair major machinery.    Good on the Sea Cadets for have such a program.

Regards
G2G


----------

