[MRIC] ICS 123 Comments from BaCo

[Joe]

BaCo is okay with the modified form as presented during the initial MRIC
meeting.

We have been using the ICS-213 standard form with minor modifications (as
developed with Harford County in 2005) for a over 18 months. Over the last
ten months we have used it during two county wide drills and three
activations with no issues. We have clocked over 1500 man hours of proven
use during exercises and activations. Our supported agencies (12) have found
that keeping the outgoing reply on the same form as the incoming actually
improves efficiency, makes it easier for the responder to compose a reply
and for archiving.

We tried a radiogram/ICS-213 hybrid and found that word count, fixed spaces
and separate forms for message and reply leads to confusion. We don't send
messages word by word we send them phrase by phrase. During one of our
county wide exercises supported agencies passed over 20 formal and 15
tactical messages using the modified ICS-213 format within a span of
forty-five minutes. Compare that to how long it takes and how few messages
are passed on a traffic net during any given session of the same duration. 

Our personnel have used the form, it is used outside of RACES and it has
been used under fire by federal agencies since 2000. A hybrid ARRL/ICS-213
format is not workable for BaCo.