BTW, I would like to add to my comments that the quote from the other
forum at the end of my message is slightly out of context here and I
don't want to imply that the ICS-213 in FLMSG is improperly formatted.
Additionally, we have received very favorable response to the ability of
sending and receiving the standard ICS-213 from current and potential
served agencies.
-Dave, KB3FXI
On 11/7/2010 1:16 PM, Dave Kleber 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
_______________________________________________
fldigi-alpha mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/fldigi-alpha
