Helps to send it from the right address for the list ;-( -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Roger G6CKR <[email protected]> To: Mike Haynes <[email protected]> Cc: Larry Levesque <[email protected]>, [email protected] Subject: Re: FLMSG 1.1.0 Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 23:35:22 +0000
And it all else fails you re-introduce the user service to the universal form mark 1. Take one sheet of blank paper. Start writing. Repeat as needed. Actually if receiving a form that a printed black it not available for the above results in a cleaner copy than trying to fit to a different form. The dis-advantage being you have to ask for the printed parts of the original to be sent as well as the written. Granted the above is more relevant to Voice or CW but since a message may well change modes en-route We have come along way since the telegraph by with his bicycle but that is still the fall back when all else fails. I must get round to trying the latest version to see if the UK preferred forms match any of the included ones. 73 Roger G6CKR On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 17:56 -0500, Mike Haynes wrote: > This is the reason we have decided to use one standard form. > We maintain a message log for accountability. > > Flwrap fulfills most of what we need as it unwraps the information > correctly on the receiving end when used as part of the communication > process. > > Any Radio service not just the Amateur service has the same > challenges. That requires trained and qualified operators to put the > information in a meaningful format for the agency/unit they are > assigned too. > > Often we may actually transcribe the information into a specific > form/format as requested by those we serve and attach the original > message as received. This provides full accountability and tracking. > This function of a Radio Operator really hasn't changed that much > since the spark gap days. > > This is an area where ARES and others in the Amateur Community can > really excel and provide meaningful services to their communities. > Some even cross train to augment agencies primary services in times of > need. > > Now, once we get a high dollar mobile Satellite system brought to the > area from some distant unit, then we can provide all types of complete > services including attaching a document and using the Internet with > direct connectivity and solve all the problems including high > bandwidth proprietary formats like X-rays. All with complete > accountability and traceability. > (until it goes down of course). > > It all boils down to using a standard approach including forms that > accomplish most of what everyone needs. > > No system will ever be perfect not matter what we attempt to do. > > We can, however, do a really fine job with the Fl Suite of tools that > rank right up there with some of the best radio techniques and > capabilities of Federal Agencies and the Military. > > We can always tweak and improve our processes as time goes on and > certainly the points you bring up should be kept in the basket of > concepts to push the development. > > Keeping this type of cordial dialogue, is the source of the best > innovation one can ever have. > > I thank all of you for what you do and the ideas you put forth. > Personally I take them back to our unit and share them. It helps us > improve our services. > > Again Thanks, > > Mike > > > > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Larry Levesque <[email protected]> > wrote: > I understand what you are saying. But we also have to realize > that everything is not perfect. The original ICS forms were > designed to be delivered in person. Once you add amateur radio > to it, it adds more layers of complexity. > > You have to be able to track where the message came from. > Where it was passed to. And if and to whom it was delivered. > None of this information is was designed be be put on the form > itself. > > Maybe what we should be looking for is a "framework" to wrap > the actual messages in. A envelope of tracking and routing > information contained in flmsg and passed with the messages. > This information would be kept in a database with the message > itself. The message could be printed separately without the > envelope information and given to the recipient. Or we could > hand them the envelope information also if they need it. This > would allow us to give them exactly what they want and have > our info too. > > This would probably take a bit of work since it would need to > be able to be customisable as there are many different > versions of even an ICS-213 form out there. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 02:39:06PM -0500, Dave Kleber wrote: > > Well, as I stated in my previous message, our job is to send > and > > receive the data from served agencies, with 100% accuracy, > as > > presented to us, to the best of our ability. > > > NBEMS/FLDIGI/FLWRAP/FLMSG has already proved to be the most > > impressive toolkit in the bag with this regard. > > > > But if we're going in with a blank slate, I think the FLMSG > toolkit > > should emulate the national FEMA standard forms. Any > > qualified/properly trained NBEMS emcomm volunteer should be > able to > > easily make changes from the FEMA/NIMS standards on the fly. > > > > -Dave, KB3FXI > > > > > -- > Larry Levesque > KA1VGM > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
