The differences in opinion seems to be the interpretation of NIMS compliance. When it comes to forms there is the thought that as long as the format is used (layout) then some flexibility in column headers should be allowed or as is usually stated "Agency Need Specific".
The whole idea of NIMS is to provide a common framework for interoperability. Some folks are still struggling with that concept. As a COMM L I always have to determine the set of forms the Incident Commander has chosen and become aware of differences. The 205 is usually generated within COMMS so we generate the form from the outset. 2 of the 3 tool kit 205's I have and the FEMA form 205 are identical. The 3rd 205 is an agency specific form/format. I feel we would always be better positioned if we use the FEMA forms. The only problem so far is when you look at their website and download a form it may not have a date of implementation on it. The 205 pdf from the FEMA website is a good example. This makes it difficult to keep up with new changes. FEMA could do a better job (adopt some best practices from other agencies) in this area. All forms should have a date to determine the latest version to be used. I have looked at all 205's from previous exercises and deployments we have been involved in and all are of the FEMA format. You are correct regarding Standardization. That is the whole purpose of the forms and the NIMS concept. We would be safe using the current FEMA forms. We will have to make sure we keep up with any future changes for forms we use. Thanks, Mike On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Dave Kleber <[email protected]> wrote: > This is an interesting debate that I have been involved with in some other > forums on LinkedIn and elsewhere. > > There seems to be two schools of thought from emergency managers, hospital > system admins and communications volunteers. > > One is that agencies should have the flexibility of modifying the ICS forms > to better suite their needs. The other is that ICS falls under the National > Incident Management System (NIMS) and all forms should be in the standard > FEMA format ( > http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/ICSResource/ICSResCntr_Forms.htm). > > I side with the latter and take the position that there should be no such > thing as a modified standardized form... kinda a contradiction in terms and > theory. And, BTW, much to my dismay... my opinion is in the minority. > > However, as an amateur radio emcomm volunteer, my job is to send and > receive data and traffic EXACTLY as the served agency presents it to me and > my team members and without error. > > -Dave, KB3FXI > > Here is one of the comments from another forum member with whom I agree, > wholeheartedly: > > ############################################# > > Somehow I think the concept of standardization has been lost in this > discussion. An ICS 213 Form is an ICS 213 Form. I don't think it is perfect > for every application, but if you decide that it needs to be changed to work > in your environment then you have created a new form. Your modified form is > not an ICS 213 Form, and you should not call it one. > > I recommend that if additional information is required to process the > message, then an additional routing form or disposition form be attached as > required. I suggest that failure to maintain the expected format might delay > the transmission of the message and "might actually hinder an effective > response to an incident". Simple items like Incident Name and Message Number > can be incorporated into the existing fields by procedure. > > The suggestions in this thread that communications will never go outside of > your local agency imply to me that you have never been involved in a real > emergency. If that is really the case, you don't need the ICS 213. > > In my opinion, failure to use an ICS 213 Form when it is required should > result in a negative assessment. > > ############################################# > > > > On 11/7/2010 12:37 PM, Mike Haynes wrote: > >> As far as the 205 form is concerned there are two versions in use >> predominantly both of which are accepted versions. What we have to decide >> is >> which template we feel best meets the needs. The formats are the same but >> wording as you noted varies. These also may change as we move forward and >> Federal Agencies continue to evolve in response requirements. >> >> We probably need more feedback from our EmComm and Agency users to guide >> us >> as to most updated changes. >> >> This is a good example. I have 3 different ICS form tools provided by >> different groups FEMA being one and all have some variances from form to >> form. The formats are all the same but wordings may vary. >> >> I look forward to everyones input. >> >> Thanks for bringing this to the forefront. >> >> Mike >> On Nov 7, 2010 12:24 PM, "Dave Kleber"<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I just noticed in the new release of FLMSG 1.1.0, under the >>> NTS/Radiogram form, periods in the message body are now being converted >>> to "DOT" rather than "X" after the check button is clicked. I apologize >>> for not catching this on the alpha. I just came across this during our >>> 80m net this morning when sending a message to one of our checkins. >>> >>> Also, on the ICS-205 form, the FEMA version of the form states >>> "System/Cache" for the first column rather than "Radio Type" as it does >>> in FLMSG. >>> >>> -Dave, KB3FXI >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> fldigi-alpha mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/fldigi-alpha >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ fldigi-alpha mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/fldigi-alpha
