[MRIC] Fwd: Frederick County Repy

[brettham at aol.com]

James,

Thank you for providing your feedback for Fredrick county.

Everyone, please send your comments to the MRIC reflector. Let's keep  
the discussion open to all.

James, I know you had a problem with your email, so I don't mind  
forwarding this. Thanks again for the feedback.

Brett

-----Original Message-----
From: wa3fuj at msn.com
To: BrettHam at aol.com
Sent: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 1:15 PM
Subject: Frederick County Repy

Paragraph four in this e-mail is the reason I have not replied before.  
As limited as 213 is it is to be used as a national form. If/when RACES  
is activated, we will not only ( most likely ) be working with our local  
EM but with other agencies and districts. The Idea ( as I see it ) for  
NIMS is one way one path. Even if the state of Maryland has a standard  
we will be working with other areas. Is the national 213 very limited,  
Yes. However, if it is to be a national form it must be the same all  
around. I do not like the present one. I much prefer the additions. My  
problem is, again, how can we RACES operators act as a communications  
conduit between different agencies and districts if we are not talking (  
same format ) the same language. James Devilbiss Frederick County  
Maryland RACES 
Please remember that Frederick County possibly be in contact or support  
of the three surrounding states in a large scale activation. 
 
>From: BrettHam at aol.com 
>To: mric at mailman.qth.net 
>Subject: Re: [MRIC] ICS 123 Comments from Washington County RACES  
>andEmergency Manaager 
>Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:25:09 EDT 
> 
>Bob, 
> 
>Thank you for your comments. You obviously spent a lot of time on this  
>issue 
>and your effort is very much appreciated. You set a good example for  
the 
>rest of us. Thank you also for providing an example of what you had in  
>mind. A 
>picture is worth a thousand words. You have done a very professional  
job! 
> 
>Conversely, we still have not heard from most jurisdictions, and there  
are 
>only 2 weeks left before our next MRIC meeting. If we do not approve  
>something 
>in this next meeting, it will not be available for our EMs to approve  
in 
>May, and our next MRIC meeting is not until November which makes it  
>unlikely we 
>will have an agreement this year. I STRONGLY encourage all other ROs to  

>please provide their positions as Bob did, immediately, so we can spend  
the >next 
>two weeks resolving our differences. We may need to go back to our EMs  
>several 
>times before we reach consensus. It has been 5 or 6 weeks since Al  
>presented 
>his proposed form, and we still have not heard from 90% of you. Please  
do >not 
>wait until the week before we meet to raise your concerns. If you do,  
you 
>will derail our efforts. Take Bob's form, and Al's form and sit down  
with >your 
>EM and get their input this week. Also, you need to know how far they  
are 
>willing to go to reach a compromise in the event most other  
jurisdictions >prefer 
>the other form. 
> 
>That said, my EM and RACES Operators have taken the opposite position  
as 
>Washington County. We do not claim to have a monopoly on being right,  
so >let's 
>exchange some ideas and try to reach consensus. 
> 
>Our EM wants us to use the same ICS-213 form that they will be using in  
>the 
>EOC and elsewhere. They also want it to very closely resemble the  
national 
>standard ICS-213 form, which is extremely simple. First responders  
coming >in 
>from other areas will be familiar with the standard ICS-213. No offense  

>intended, but I think your proposed form varies enough from the  
standard, >that it 
>falls outside the guidelines to be called an ICS-213. It is much closer  
in 
>format to a radiogram. If that is what we all agree to use between  
>jurisdictions, 
>I believe we can do that, but we should call it something other than 
>ICS-213. 
> 
>One of the objections that Talbot County has to using a word count, is  
>that 
>it adds a lot of complexity and rules as to how the word count is  
>calculated. 
>As radio operators, we know a lot of that already (use xray as period,  
>count 
>punctuation, acronyms, etc. as a word), but the rest of the EOC and 
>emergency personnel are not aware of separating words, etc., so they  
will >not 
>understand the form you propose. They will end up passing a message to  
us >on a 
>standard ICS-213, then we will have to copy it onto the radiogram-type  
form > that 
>you propose with words separated, etc. 
> 
>There is a big, big push in emergency management to keep things simple,  

>streamlined, and to use plain English to avoid confusion during an  
>emergency. 
>Hence, the simplicity of the standard ICS-213. It applies the lessons  
>learned 
>from major emergencies in the past. 
> 
>To this end, our EM wants us to use the same form everyone else in the  
EOC 
>will use. Using carbons with the format Al proposed, the person in the  
EOC 
>that originated the message would keep the bottom carbon copy and pass  
the >rest 
>to RACES. After sending, RACES would keep the remaining copies in a  
pile of 
>sent messages. Since the message number is incremented, the pile of  
>messages 
>sent will automatically end up being in numerical order (or very close  
to >it if 
> you have several operators), so locating a sent message will be very  
>quick. 
> 
>If a reply comes in (are you ready to copy REPLY to message 25?), the 
>appropriate form is located, the reply is copied (I'm ready to copy)  
and >RACES 
>keeps the bottom copy and passes the last (top) copy to the EOC so they  
>can see 
>the reply. 
> 
>While this procedure is purely up to each jurisdiction, it does have an  

>impact on the format of the form. You can copy replies onto a different  
>sheet if 
>you like in Washington County, but I cannot use my procedure unless the  

>approved form contains a reply section. So I suggest we keep the reply  
>section, 
>and leave it up to the jurisdiction whether or not they use it. I don't  
>think 
>there is much disagreement here. 
> 
>The point of this long explanation, is that if RACES uses a different  
form 
>than the rest of the EOC, then we cannot use the carbon copy procedure  
I 
>mention above, where every link in the message handling gets to keep a  
>copy so it 
>can be traced back in the (very likely) event that a message gets lost.  

>Instead, what we will have to do in RACES is copy the text from the  
>original 
>ICS-213, onto the form you propose before sending it. Then we need to  
>correlate 
>the two forms. If a reply comes in, I suppose we would copy onto the  
>radiogram 
>to check word count, then copy onto the original ICS-213 to hand off to  
>the 
>EOC. Talbot County believes that this additional processing, introduces  
>more 
>errors than the radiogram-type format and word count will correct, and 
>significantly reduces throughput speed. It would probably be faster and  
>catch more 
>errors to send every message twice than to use a word count and have to  
>copy 
>onto a second form. 
> 
>I absolutely agree that accuracy is of prime importance. If the message  
is 
>not accurate, we are out of business. Initially I was very much against  

>eliminating the word count (and necessary radiogram type format in  
order to >be able 
>to calculate a word count), but I have been convinced that keeping it  
>simple 
>will decrease the likelihood of errors in the first place. Especially  
>since 
>we are dealing with volunteers, and some only practice  
sending/receiving a 
>few times a year. For the hams on the weekly nets, radiograms are  
better, >but to 
> RACES embedded in emergency operations, with so much other stuff they  
>need 
>to learn, I now believe using the standard ICS-213 form is better. So  
far, >in 
>the past few drills, I have been surprised how accurate we have been  
>without 
>a word count. 
> 
>I will discuss your proposal with my EM when he gets back from the  
>Hurricane 
>conference. In the mean-time, can you please discuss our position with  
>yours? 
> 
>Thanks again for your effort and I hope we can reach consensus. I  
really >do 
>appreciate your hard work. This is exactly the kind of dialog I was  
hoping >we 
>would have. 
> 
>By they way everyone, I got a new call-sign from the FCC this week:  
K3TAL. 
>Please update your records. 
> 
>Brett Hammond 
>Talbot County RACES Officer 
>Chairman, MRIC 
> 
>In a message dated 4/2/2007 9:17:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
>rjlong61 at myactv.net writes: 
>I have met with the Washington County Emergency Manager. In fact there 
>were a number of RACES operators present at this meeting. The results 
>of the meeting follow. 
> 
>1. We see that the ICS-213 will be the basis for communications as has 
>been stated by other jurisdictions 
> 
>2. We see the value of a preamble in both the main message and the 
>reply. It is not unlikely that in replying the new message may carry 
>information that could have a different priority than the original  
>message. 
>3. We feel that it is most important that our messages be relayed in a 
>expedient and precise manner. To omit the word count in either the 
>original message or reply can allow for avoidable errors. To speed up 
>the handling of the messages and facilitate the correction of omission 
>the form should require a limited number of words on a line. It is 
>impracticable to try to count the number of words in a free form 
>message.would be an extremely difficult task and would be very time 
>consuming. We suggest 5 to 10 words per line.Other communications 
>systems have a tape recorded backup that allows for a replay if 
>necessary. We do not have that luxury we MUST get it right on the 1st 
>effort. 
> 
> 
>The following comments were also made. 
> 
>1. When receiving a reply, it should be copied on a fresh sheet, then 
>matched up with the original after the message is accepted. In a real 
>time event searching for the original message and holding up the 
>transmission of the message would just slow things down. 
>2. If a message reply is not to have its own number then it should 
>have the a suffix added to the message number such as 243R to identify 
>it as belonging to message number 243. 
> 
>We have heard that the count just slows thing down, To omit that says 
>that accuracy in traffic handling is a luxury we cannot afford, close 
>is good enough. We say, no the passing of a carbon copy of the message 
>is what our officials deserve. Close says errors are acceptable. Not 
>when our communities welfare is on the line. 
> 
>Before I was willing to send this we needed to develop a message form 
>prototype. The message form might look something like - 
>http://www.qsl.net/kd3jk/ics_213_draft.xls 
>______________________________________________________________ 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>************************************** See what's free at  
>http://www.aol.com. 
>______________________________________________________________ 
>This email list is for the use of RACES Officers and Emergency  
Managers. >Only email related to the Maryland RACES Interoperabilty  
Committee (MRIC) >of the Maryland Emergency Management Association  
should be sent to this >email reflector list. All emails must be in  
plain text format (no HTML). 
>MRIC mailing list 
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mric 
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmmain.htm 
>Post: mailto:MRIC at mailman.qth.net 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
Download Messenger. Join the i知 Initiative. Help make a difference  
today. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07 
 


________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free  
from AOL at AOL.com.
=0