We have all encountered one on occasion; the individual who, by virtue of possessing an amateur radio license and an orange safety vest, is somehow magically transformed into an expert on emergency services operations. These are the individuals who exemplify the old expression, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

The self-styled expert comes in a variety of forms, ranging from the operator who magically requires no training or experience with traffic handling, but will nonetheless “be there when needed,” to the operator who believes that every emergency services official will be waiting patiently at an office computer for the arrival of this person’s important Winlink email. Regardless of the flavor, many such “experts” operate more on simplistic assumptions than they do on real-world, boots-on-the-ground, experience in disaster operations.

One such “expert” recently declared that there is no need to use a standard message format to facilitate the transmission of an emergency message because he will simply send the message via Winlink for email delivery. Unfortunately, he has probably never considered the reality that standard formats such as ICS-213 or the radiogram incorporate data that is extremely important to emergency operations, such as:

• A standard message format ensures that important accountability data is appended to important message traffic. This allows an emergency services official to answer such questions as, “On whose authority was this directive issued?” or “What agency is responsible for this request?” A standard format that requires names, titles, and the function of the addressee and the originator are essential to effective emergency operations.
• Standard message formats always incorporate a date-time group that defines when the message was drafted and tendered for origination. This is not necessarily the same time as that automatically appended to an email when a radio operator finally entered the message into a terminal or when it was finally transmitted. Emergency services officials make many decisions based on temporal context. For example, “Are the number of beds available at a trauma center increasing or decreasing?” “Is the wildfire acreage increasing or decreasing?” and so on. Messages misplaced on a timeline can result in significant or even fatal response failures.
• The network data contained in a Radiogram or radiogram-ICS213 preamble facilitates service messages and replies. It aids in the routing of replies by defining network topology. It associates a radio operator or station with the disaster official whose name, title, and function appears in the signature or “FROM” field. Message serial numbers allow for quick reference to messages in a file during a busy operation. Message precedence allocates scarce circuit capacity to the highest priority messages first. Zip codes in addresses allow for automatic routing if a message is transferred to the Digital Traffic Network.

Perhaps the most critical point about standard message formats and the network management data contained within the preamble of a radiogram or radiogram-ICS213 message is the fact that it facilitates the transfer of message traffic between radio networks. Going back to our “know-it-all,” his messages originated by Winlink will very likely reach the inbox of the addressee’s email account. Winlink is an excellent and reliable tool for emergency communications. However, let’s take a deeper look at some real scenarios:

• What if the disaster official to whom an email is addressed is not at their computer when it arrives? Perhaps they are in the field, and their email account is not readily available.
• What if the disaster official has left their shift and another official is fulfilling the role? After all, there is a reason incident command is built around “functions” rather than names! The function may operate continuously for days, but people do not.
• What happens if a message must be transferred to an alternate radio network or other radio service? For example, a message arrives via email, but its information must be transferred to a public safety radio system to reach its destination.

The National Incident Management System (NIMS) specified a minimum standard when creating ICS-213. This standard defines the minimum accountability information required when transmitting official record message traffic in time of emergency. The communications network through which this minimum accountability data and its associated message content pass is simply a medium. For example, if one inserts an ICS-213 message into an email, the internet will add a variety of additional data of its own to facilitate the routing of the message and to record its functions. Likewise, when one transmits a message via a traffic network, network data is appended to facilitate routing and replies, yet the basic accountability data and message content remain intact.

Radio amateurs are not omniscient. When they originate a message on behalf of a disaster official, they may not have any insight into the circumstances at the point of delivery, nor may they have any insight into connectivity problems that may arise en route. Our job is to ensure that the message content, the accountability information, and the network management data remain intact, thereby ensuring that essential information gets to its destination intact and in a timely manner. Standard formats and methodologies help ensure this occurs.

In conclusion, next time someone insists that you do not need to keep records such as radio logs, use standard message formats for record message traffic, or insists that only one mode or method is the “be-all and end-all” of EmComm, do not walk away. Run away as fast as you can. -- James Wades, WB8SIW