# What you need to know to sail in the ORCAs



## navymich (27 Feb 2007)

From this week's Lookout http://www.lookoutnewspaper.com/archive/20070226/Lookout_Newspaper_8.07.pdf

Navy Public Affairs
Last November, Orca 55, the first of eight new Patrol Craft Training (PCT) ships, was formally accepted 
into the Canadian Navy’s Pacific Fleet.

PCT ships replace the YAG 300 class woodenhulled tenders that have served the Canadian Navy in a 
training role for more than 50 years.
   
Now alongside in its temporary berth at B Jetty, Orca is generating much interest among members of the 
naval community, particularly from the three primary user groups: Venture, the Naval Officers Training 
Centre (NOTC); Naval Reserve Divisions (NRD); and the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets (RCSC). 

Many people are curious as to how Maritime Operations Group Four (MOG4) intends to qualify personnel 
to operate them, and how the ships will be employed.

Recently, Orca completed its Sea Readiness Inspection by Sea Training Pacific (Minor War Vessel). The ship
 is currently conducting local area operations in order to develop standard operating procedures.

Orca will be available for training operations on April 1 and the next PCT ship Raven 56 should be available 
on May 14. While all three user groups will have access to the new ships, NOTC has priority to meet its 
training schedule.

Victoria Shipyards recently accelerated the production of the PCTs and the navy may have all eight ships by 
the summer of 2008.

The first three ships, Orca, Raven and Caribou, come with an Initial Cadre Training (ICT) package that is taught
 by the ship’s contractor. Written to Naval Qualification Standard and Plan requirements, the first ICT occurred 
from Oct. 25 to Nov. 3, 2006. The training included a week of classroom and on board familiarization followed 
followed by a week of day sails. The initial ICT was a “train the trainer” opportunity involving personnel from 
MOG4 Naval Tender Section (NTS), NOTC, and Canadian Forces Fleet School Esquimalt (CFFSE). Representatives
 from NOTC and CFFS(E) are now busy fine tuning the ICT documents and developing the material for then Steady 
State Class Training Package. 

The second ICT session was Feb. 5 to16 and the third will be in May. The Directorate of Maritime Training and 
Education loaded the February course, and will soon solicit nominations from Naval Reserve Divisions for the May 
course. Naval Reserve Headquarters will coordinate the selection for these positions based on nomination messages
from individual units.

Early experience with the new ships has determined they require a minimum crew of five qualified personnel. Three 
 must be PCT qualified/endorsed. The Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Engineer and Chief Boatswain’s Mate (Buffer), all 
must complete PCT familiarization training (ICT or navy steady state) and be endorsed by MOG4/Canadian Fleet
Pacific Engineering Staff, as applicable. The remaining two members of the crew must be NETP/O qualified as a minimum. 

To be eligible for the PCT familiarization trainings OIC, Regular and Reserve Force Maritime Surface (MARS) Officers 
require their Bridge Watchkeeping Certificate. PCT qualification will be granted once the candidate passes the MOG4 
practical assessment (and a formal Tender Command Board for those who have not already done so for YAGs).

As with the current tenders, a Boatswain, QL6A or equivalent, may gain PCT endorsement as OIC after completing 
42 days at sea in a Tender; 14 as 2 I/C and the same familiarization training, practical assessment and board as 
the MARS Officer.

Officers of the Cadet Instructor Cadre (CIC) who are Tender C o m m a n d / C h a r g e qualified are eligible for the
 PCT Familiarization training as OIC. PCT qualification will be granted once the candidate passes the MOG4 practical 
assessment (and a formal Tender Command Board for those who have not already done so for YAGs).

Non Tender Charge/ Command CIC Officers, may gain PCT endorsement as OIC after completing the Tender OIC 
course and 42 days at sea in a Tender, 14 as 2 I/C and the same PCT familiarization training, practical assessment 
and board.

To be the Engineer in a PCT, Reserve Marine Engineering Systems Operators (MESO) will need their B Ticket and 
must complete the PCT familiarization training package and pass an F44 (CANFLTPAC MWV Technical Staff) 
Qualification Board.

The PCT Chief Boatswain Mate will need their Boatswain QL5A equivalent and must complete the PCT familiarization-
training package. To be considered PCT qualified, the candidate must pass a practical demonstration to the NTS 
Chief-in-Charge or their delegated representative (normally the NTS Buffer) of their PCT specific seamanship skills 
including safe operation of the hydraulic crane.

Naval Tender Section will supply a qualified engineer for all sea cadet trips. The engineer will be responsible to the 
OIC for all technical matters. Sea cadet engineers will work under the supervision of the NTS engineer. NTS will also
 supply a qualified Chief Boatswain Mate for all sea cadet trips. The Chief Boatswain Mate will be responsible to the
OIC for the safety of allseamanship evolutions, including operation of the crane.

It is expected that the navy’s Steady State Class Training Package for OICs, engineers and boatswains will commence
 in the fall of 2007 or early in 2008. CIC Officers, Naval Reservists, and Regular Force members will be free to apply for
 or be nominated for positions on the OIC, engineer, or boatswain familiarization courses, as appropriate, through their 
chain of command. CFFS(E) and NOTC Venture are the responsible training establishments for the courses and will 
promulgate course nomination and loading messages based on operational priorities.

The additional speed, range and on board facilities of the PCT allows for a wider area of operations than the about to 
be retired YAGs. With accommodation for 20 personnel and excellent onboard facilities, the PCTs are well equipped for
 their primary training role. The ships have an Integrated Control Platform System for ship control and monitoring and 
a sophisticated integrated navigation and electronic chart display and information system that is consistent with the system
 already in service in the Kingston and Halifax Class ships.

In the future, a hydrodynamic model of the PCT will be incorporated into the Bridge Simulator at the Naval Officer Training 
Centre (NOTC). That willallow OIC candidates to practice ship handling prior to challenging the OIC practical assessment, 
should they wish to do so.

Additional information is available on the MOG4 website under the heading “Orca”.


----------



## observor 69 (27 Feb 2007)

Pictures!!  

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-orca-project.htm


----------



## ejames (17 Jul 2007)

I am in the middle of NETP-O training in Esquimalt and we just found out that for the sea phase of the course we will be taking out two ORCAs and a YAG. 

Part of me wants to sail in the new ORCAs so I can go back to my unit and brag about them but another part of me wants to sail the YAGs before they are taken away...after all during MARS III and IV I will get a chance to sail the ORCAs.

Anyone else in the same boat here?


----------



## tree hugger (17 Jul 2007)

no pun intended??


----------



## Neill McKay (17 Jul 2007)

ejames said:
			
		

> Part of me wants to sail in the new ORCAs so I can go back to my unit and brag about them but another part of me wants to sail the YAGs before they are taken away...after all during MARS III and IV I will get a chance to sail the ORCAs.



You'll have the rest of your life to sail in comfy ships like ORCAs.  Get some YAG time in while it's still there to be had: open bridges (probably the last ones in NATO), a real messdeck, and food cooked on a stove as old as your parents, and navigating by pencil and paper.  THAT's something to brag about!

(Seriously -- it's an opportunity I encourage you to take if you get the chance.)


----------



## Privateer (18 Jul 2007)

As someone who is probably one of the last to experience the BAY class PB open bridge for MARS III, I would recommend taking the YAG for summer training.  You'll get a chance to experience an open bridge and to develop some basic bridgemanship free from all the electronic crutches.  It's good to learn to rely on the Mark I Eye Ball as your basic situational awareness tool!


----------



## Lofty (30 Jul 2007)

I have had the fortune to sail on both class of vessel, and although the Orca has all the bells and whistles, at the end of the day, when you get to MARS III and from there on, it's all about "Heads-up" Navigation. On Orca, there is evry new piece of technology imaginable, and in the sims there is radar and "binoculars" (a computer screen on which you can zoom in on things) - but at the end of the day you end up looking like a fool and the staff let you know it when you get caught staring at a screen mumbling about how something dosen't quite look right when there is a ship or a rock just outside the window that you have yet to notice. 

Keep your head up and you'll do fine irregardless of which you end up on...and don't forget - evrything else on a bridge is meerly a tool to backup the old "Mark 1 Eyeball" (get used to hearing that too!)


Best of luck!


----------



## MARS (3 Mar 2008)

A couple of ORCA training updates for those interested:



> SUBJ: COURSE SOLICITATION - ORCA OIC CLASS PACKAGE SESSION 0001
> REF A.CCFP 099 070052Z DEC 07 - WARNING ORDER ORCA MANNING
> B. MARPACHQ ESQUIMALT 5323-1 072341Z JAN 08 - ORCA CLASS MANNING
> C. ORCA OIC CLASS PACKAGE - QUALIFICATION STANDARD AND PLAN
> ...





> SUBJ: COURSE SOLICITATION - ORCA OIC CLASS PACKAGE - 117306
> REF: A.CCFP 099 070052Z DEC 07 WARNING ORDER ORCE MANNING
> B. MARPACHQ J12-1-1 2122 221839Z FEB 08 CRS SOLICITATION OIC PKG
> 1. AS PER NAVRES POLICY AND BECAUSE REF A STATES THAT PERS SELECTED
> ...


----------



## Cronicbny (15 Mar 2008)

Question (ref 2B): How do they do an assessment in NABS without an ORCA model?

Second Question (ref 2A): What is considered Two weeks consolidation? Is it acting OIC? XO? Or just Orca Charge? Can pers who've completed both NETPO and MARS III in ORCAs qualify as having had two weeks? (I think I know the answer... just curious)


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Mar 2008)

Love the look of those little beauties. As one who spent MARS training in Minesweepers, YFPs and YAGs I would say there's a lot of romantic nonsense about open bridges. I can remember a particularily cruel, stormy night on the bridge of HMCS Chignecto (sweeper) trying to keep my Nav notebook, charts and everything else dry while peering out through my raincovered spectacles to see if I could see anything at all. Not fun!! I remember thinking how much pain this would have been during the Second World War on convoy duty in the North Atlantic (way colder and rougher) with the added problem of an ever present enemy who enjoyed diving below the weather when it suited him.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Mar 2008)

Does the ORCA mean the end to young subbies feeding the fishes from a YAG at W601?  ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (15 Mar 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Does the ORCA mean the end to young subbies feeding the fishes from a YAG at W601?  ;D



Wow that would be a little rough taking a Yag out there. We usually went to Friday Harbour and the Gulf Island flesh pots and terrorized the Legion Halls at night!! ;D


----------



## Neill McKay (15 Mar 2008)

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> Question (ref 2B): How do they do an assessment in NABS without an ORCA model?



I'd speculate that they use something else with similar handling characteristics.  I understand that they used to use a model of some sort of small ferry from Japan to simulate a YAG.  The staff at the time felt that it was a pretty good match.  (They might still use it, for that matter.)


----------



## Cronicbny (15 Mar 2008)

Prior to our MARS III sea phase they put us in those ferries in NABS... they're not even close. I suppose the point is to practise handling a small ship, but the ORCAs drive more like a speedboat than a conventional ship (they heel inwards on turns throughout). I'd love to get my "hands" on the ORCA model when it's done


----------



## gwp (22 Jul 2008)

See latest edition of Maple Leaf.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Community/mapleleaf/article_e.asp?id=4543


----------



## Snakedoc (28 Jul 2008)

I'm just curious about the OIC training as it relates to CIC officers.  Isn't a BWK certificate required for this type of training and isn't this only attainable by MARS qualified officers?


----------



## gwp (28 Jul 2008)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> I'm just curious about the OIC training as it relates to CIC officers.  Isn't a BWK certificate required for this type of training and isn't this only attainable by MARS qualified officers?


Tender Qualified and BWK are different qualifications.
BWK holders still are required to be ORCA endorsed to drive the new PCTs
You can be Tender Qualified without having a BWK.  NCMs may be Tender Qualified.  



> As with the current tenders, a Boatswain, QL6A or equivalent, may gain PCT endorsement as OIC after completing
> 42 days at sea in a Tender; 14 as 2 I/C and the same familiarization training, practical assessment and board as
> the MARS Officer.
> 
> ...



Everyone is trained to the same standard.


----------



## Snakedoc (31 Jul 2008)

Thanks for the info gwp!

I'm not familiar with the tender charge qualification, I did a search but did not find much info on the forums or the internet.  Is the training similar to that required for a MARS officer but focused for a smaller vessel?  Are the same/similar procedures followed for bridge control, navigation... and i'm assuming safety procedures like fire fighting and damage (flood) control?

Just curious but is there a OOD qualification required for the ORCA's?


----------



## Neill McKay (31 Jul 2008)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> I'm not familiar with the tender charge qualification, I did a search but did not find much info on the forums or the internet.  Is the training similar to that required for a MARS officer but focused for a smaller vessel?  Are the same/similar procedures followed for bridge control, navigation... and i'm assuming safety procedures like fire fighting and damage (flood) control?



That's about right.  The Tender Charge course consists of the bulk of MARS III, plus about a week's worth of FF&DC and sea survival.


----------



## FSTO (31 Jul 2008)

Tender Charge also have some limitations that Tender Command does not:

Link:
http://esquimalt.mil.ca/mog4/NTS/NTS%20Instructions%20to%20OIC.doc

4.	Tender Charge OIC.  Personnel that have passed a Tender Charge Board in accordance with Annex G of Ref A may assume the duties of Officer-in-Command of a MOG 4 NTS vessel. Tender Charge OICs may operate NTS vessels in daylight hours with at least 2 NM visibility in the Tender Local Operating Area as defined in Ref  E and chapter 3 of these instructions.


----------



## Snakedoc (31 Jul 2008)

That's interesting to know.  So on the ORCA, is there still the requirement for there to be both an OIC (captain type figure) and a person acting as the OOW like in larger vessels (I know during my MARS training there was but is this also true for sea cadet training or operations involving smaller vessels)?  Or is the requirement only to have a tender charge qualified person on the bridge and someone to essentially steer the boat?

Also, I'm assuming that the tender charge qualification is not limited to training situations but can involve operations as well?  For example, if during the 2010 olympics, the ORCA's were used as additional patrol craft during the weeks of the olympics, tender charge qualified CIC officers could be asked and given the opportunity to volunteer in security operations?

Thanks again for the responses!


----------



## Neill McKay (31 Jul 2008)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> That's interesting to know.  So on the ORCA, is there still the requirement for there to be both an OIC (captain type figure) and a person acting as the OOW like in larger vessels (I know during my MARS training there was but is this also true for sea cadet training or operations involving smaller vessels)?  Or is the requirement only to have a tender charge qualified person on the bridge and someone to essentially steer the boat?



There is an OIC who is, as you suggest, the captain (but is not a Commanding Officer as the term applies to a commissioned warship).  The OOW is not necessarily the OIC.

The requirement for a YAG, as it was explained to me, is that the OOW need not have a tender charge certificate; the qualification course is enough.  (After the course one must accumulate a certain amount of sea time and pass a board to receive the certificate).  If the OOW is does not have the certificate there must be another officer who does have it somewhere on the upper decks.  I don't know if this is the same for an ORCA.


----------



## Sailorwest (8 Aug 2008)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Also, I'm assuming that the tender charge qualification is not limited to training situations but can involve operations as well?  For example, if during the 2010 olympics, the ORCA's were used as additional patrol craft during the weeks of the olympics, tender charge qualified CIC officers could be asked and given the opportunity to volunteer in security operations?


This is an interesting question. The Orca is a far more capable vessel than the YAG that preceeded it and could be used in operational activities like this. Some of the talk I had heard was that if the ORCA was to be employed in an operational role (in contrast to training), it would require at least a MWV command qualification. Given the potential for having weapons on board and use of force issues, a tender command/charge would simply not be sufficient. That being said, it is just as likely that they would use KIN class ships and establish a PSU during the olympics.


----------



## Snakedoc (9 Aug 2008)

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> This is an interesting question. The Orca is a far more capable vessel than the YAG that preceeded it and could be used in operational activities like this. Some of the talk I had heard was that if the ORCA was to be employed in an operational role (in contrast to training), it would require at least a MWV command qualification. Given the potential for having weapons on board and use of force issues, a tender command/charge would simply not be sufficient. *That being said, it is just as likely that they would use KIN class ships and establish a PSU during the olympics.*



That being said, if the Canadian Navy were to be officially asked to perform security operations (not sure if they have yet) in support of the Olympics, wouldn't it be hypothetically just as likely to use both the KIN class ships AND ORCA vessels in combination to establish a PSU....(and obviously any other resource the Navy deems necessary)?  ORCAs having the advantage of speed, smaller size, and smaller crew requirement.  However if you meant the Navy's training requirements would limit them to using the KIN class ships and not the ORCAs, that is a possibiltiy.

Sailorwest also made an interesting comment about the requirement for a MWV command qualification, and a logical one.  However, though CIC members are not trained in use of force, arn't all other CF members (namely NCOs and Officers in leadership roles) trained in the use of force to some extent within the confines of ROEs issued?  What I'm getting at is that NCO's on RHIB's during PSU exercises routinely encounter potentially hostile contacts and need to make a judgement on use of force.  Would this be not much different from a NCO (or CIC officer with past training in a different branch?) possessing a tender charge certificate on a ORCA in a operational role making the same judgement?  Or is the difference in the fact that a .50 cal could potentially be mounted and the higher fire power would require a MWV command qualification?  Or maybe in the larger size of an ORCA versus a RHIB?


----------



## Sailorwest (11 Aug 2008)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> That being said, if the Canadian Navy were to be officially asked to perform security operations (not sure if they have yet) in support of the Olympics, wouldn't it be hypothetically just as likely to use both the KIN class ships AND ORCA vessels in combination to establish a PSU....(and obviously any other resource the Navy deems necessary)?  ORCAs having the advantage of speed, smaller size, and smaller crew requirement.  However if you meant the Navy's training requirements would limit them to using the KIN class ships and not the ORCAs, that is a possibiltiy.
> 
> Sailorwest also made an interesting comment about the requirement for a MWV command qualification, and a logical one.  However, though CIC members are not trained in use of force, arn't all other CF members (namely NCOs and Officers in leadership roles) trained in the use of force to some extent within the confines of ROEs issued?  What I'm getting at is that NCO's on RHIB's during PSU exercises routinely encounter potentially hostile contacts and need to make a judgement on use of force.  Would this be not much different from a NCO (or CIC officer with past training in a different branch?) possessing a tender charge certificate on a ORCA in a operational role making the same judgement?  Or is the difference in the fact that a .50 cal could potentially be mounted and the higher fire power would require a MWV command qualification?  Or maybe in the larger size of an ORCA versus a RHIB?


I think water side security for the olympics is likely tasking for the Navy. Similar to what occurred for APEC in Vancouver a few years ago.  Given that the RHIBs of a PSU are faster still then the ORCA and controlled by the PSU commander, they would be more effective as the small vessels. It is possible that the ORCA could be used in this role but to me it seems redundant. The KIN provides the larger vessel to establish a presence and the RHIBs give the high speed vessel for investigation and response. 
As for the Tender charge and tender command qualifications, you need to keep in mind that those are just slightly advanced from bridge watchkeeping quals. With no disrespect to any such qualfied pers here, these roles are strictly for supporting training. While a good number of Bosuns who are tender charge certified might also be very experienced at ROE and use of force, they have not been tested by a senior peer group on command appreciation for that purpose through a board process. The Navy being generally risk-averse, is unlikely to put people who might be considered unqualified into a highly pubic position where a high threat environment could result. MWS command qual provides that level of satisfaction for the grown ups.


----------



## Snakedoc (20 Dec 2008)

For those that are interested, there is an interesting article on training requirements for the ORCA PCT vessels on pg 22-23 of the CIC Cadence magazine:

http://www.cadets.ca/WorkArea/showcontent.aspx?id=63796


----------



## NavyShooter (26 Dec 2008)

Interestingly, these ships carry an AIS transponder, and they appear to have it on.

http://ais3.siitech.net/VTSLite/AView.aspx

Zoom in on Esquimalt.

NS


----------



## Stoker (26 Dec 2008)

Yeah, i'm surprised they would have something like that onboard. Makes it really easy to track their progress.


----------



## quadrapiper (27 Dec 2008)

Stoker said:
			
		

> Yeah, i'm surprised they would have something like that onboard. Makes it really easy to track their progress.


It can be turned off at need.


----------



## NavyShooter (27 Dec 2008)

I actually called "someone" about that last night, and it's OK to have them on.

I was rather surprised. 

That said, they're just training ships, not warships.

NS


----------



## Stoker (27 Dec 2008)

Yes I realize it can be turned off, but my point is why have that thing on a military vessel in the first place.


----------



## Stoker (27 Dec 2008)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I actually called "someone" about that last night, and it's OK to have them on.
> 
> I was rather surprised.
> 
> ...



Wow, i'm surprised at that. That's something I definitely don't agree on, even if they're "training ships". It's like announcing to everyone where a bunch of our assets are.


----------



## NavyShooter (27 Dec 2008)

The person I talked with last night was "on Watch" at a big brick building in Halifax.

As much as I was surprised at it, it's apparently OK for it to be that way.  *Shrug*

Info has been passed up the chain, what they do with it is now out of my hands.

NS


----------

