Narrative:

I was working an altrv (altitude reservation flight plan). The altitude block for the altrv was 26000 to 28000 feet. Aircraft X was the lead; flight Y (3 fighters) were the receivers. Aircraft X gave me the end of refueling request for the flight. Flight Y wanted to continue on the route and climb to 36000 feet. Aircraft X wanted to return to base at 33000 feet. Flight Y checks on my frequency at 28000 feet requesting a climb to 36000 feet. I radar identified flight Y and cleared him down route and started his climb to 32000 feet. Aircraft X was also at 28000 feet. I waited until flight Y was climbing through 29000 feet to discontinue marsa (military authority assumes responsibility for separation of aircraft) and clear aircraft X to ZZZ.at no point and time did I think I did anything wrong. It was not until a few days later when I informed that I had an procedural error in this situation. I still do not believe it was a loss and I do not believe I did anything wrong. Approximately 6 months ago some 'interpretation' on flight break ups has led to a rash of procedural errors at ZKC. I have done thousands of flight break ups in my FAA time as well as my 10 years of military radar experience. Not once have I had a problem. This interpretation states that I must go through the flight lead (aircraft X) to give instructions to the receiver (flight Y). How does that not add risk into the system? Aircraft X is not an air traffic controller. I cannot hear what aircraft X says to flight Y. In this specific case; both elements were at FL280. I simply climbed one element while they are marsa. It's not until I have standard separation that marsa is discontinued. Am I to tell the flight lead; to tell the receiver to descend to different altitude in order to break the formation up? What if the formation is a standard formation at a single altitude? How then does this interpretation apply to splitting that formation up? The quick answer is that it's impossible. I would love to sit down with the individual with whom this interpretation originated. I would also like to have a military controller and/or military liaison for the pilot community to be available expertise. I think this interpretation creates havoc; in introduces unneeded risk in the system. Marsa means that the military assumes responsibility for separation. When they are breaking up a formation; they are marsa until I tell them they no longer are. If for some reason the aircraft cannot accept the control instruction i.e. Weather or something is preventing them; they will instruct the controller.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZKC Center Controller reported conducting a flight break up after aerial refueling according to previous procedures; but was advised of a procedural error due to a new interpretation of the FAA guidance.

Narrative: I was working an ALTRV (Altitude Reservation Flight Plan). The altitude block for the ALTRV was 26000 to 28000 feet. Aircraft X was the lead; Flight Y (3 Fighters) were the receivers. Aircraft X gave me the end of refueling request for the flight. Flight Y wanted to continue on the route and climb to 36000 feet. Aircraft X wanted to return to base at 33000 feet. Flight Y checks on my frequency at 28000 feet requesting a climb to 36000 feet. I radar identified Flight Y and cleared him down route and started his climb to 32000 feet. Aircraft X was also at 28000 feet. I waited until Flight Y was climbing through 29000 feet to discontinue MARSA (Military Authority Assumes Responsibility for Separation of Aircraft) and clear Aircraft X to ZZZ.At no point and time did I think I did anything wrong. It was not until a few days later when I informed that I had an procedural error in this situation. I still do not believe it was a loss and I do not believe I did anything wrong. Approximately 6 months ago some 'interpretation' on flight break ups has led to a rash of procedural errors at ZKC. I have done thousands of flight break ups in my FAA time as well as my 10 years of military radar experience. Not once have I had a problem. This interpretation states that I must go through the flight lead (Aircraft X) to give instructions to the receiver (Flight Y). How does that NOT add risk into the system? Aircraft X is not an air traffic controller. I cannot hear what Aircraft X says to Flight Y. In this specific case; both elements were at FL280. I simply climbed one element while they are MARSA. It's not until I have standard separation that MARSA is discontinued. Am I to tell the flight lead; to tell the receiver to descend to different altitude in order to break the formation up? What if the formation is a standard formation at a single altitude? How then does this interpretation apply to splitting that formation up? The quick answer is that it's impossible. I would love to sit down with the individual with whom this interpretation originated. I would also like to have a military controller and/or military liaison for the pilot community to be available expertise. I think this interpretation creates havoc; in introduces unneeded risk in the system. MARSA means that the military assumes responsibility for separation. When they are breaking up a formation; they are MARSA until I tell them they no longer are. If for some reason the aircraft cannot accept the control instruction i.e. weather or something is preventing them; they will instruct the controller.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.