Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military Transport
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Refueling
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Second aircraft: Fighter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Manuals
Primary problem: Company Policy

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.




Synopsis: 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.