There is no difference between the MATS part 1 definition of co-ordination and that in JSP552. MATS part 1 refers controllers to MATS part 2 and this is where it all falls to pieces. There is only one section that helps the whole issue and that is the MACC section.
Coordination (Tactical)
Coordination is defined as - the act of negotiation between two or more controllers each vested with the
authority to make executive decisions appropriate to the task.
Put simply, coordination is effected when the controllers agree a course of action to resolve a
confliction or potential confliction.
However, when undertaking tactical coordination with the Military, MACC controllers need to bear the
following in mind, since this is a different mode of operation to the civilian operation:
• Coordination should take place with the unit/console working the conflicting traffic.
• Use the correct phraseology, which is use of the word “Coordination” not “Traffic Information”
• It is important to be clear (when coordinating) on exactly which traffic is being coordinated
against which traffic. Note: the fact that the MACC traffic may be “known traffic” to the
Military is not sufficient to ensure separation from further traffic that is working the
military.
• If there is more than one confliction, then separate coordination should take place for each
individual track. This may include coordinating with a different console at London (Mil).
• In order to avoid misunderstandings between MACC and London Military over the question of
crossing clearances of CAS, controllers need to bear the following in mind:
– What MACC understand as a ‘crossing clearance’ is understood by the Military as being
a Cleared Flight Path (CFP).
This difference in terminology should not alter MACC procedures since MACC can still issue a
Crossing Clearance/CFP with restrictions, for example, “cross after a certain identified flight”.
Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that when undertaking coordination with the Military,
that any conflicting traffic to the CFP is clearly pointed out to them, understood by them, and
acknowledged.
12.3.3 Phraseology
Where coordination is effected between MACC and military controllers, MACC controllers are to ensure
that the correct phraseology is used and that the action agreed is unambiguous.
Phraseology example for Tactical Coordination:
MACC: “Manchester East– request coordination my traffic EZE226 15nm southeast of Newcastle
heading 170 squawking 6310”
Mil: Wait for the Mil controller to say, “Contact”
MACC: “Maintaining FL150 until south of Leeming then descending FL100, under (Type of Service
RAS/RIS). Your traffic Ottringham 330/25nm tracking northwest squawk/callsign xxxx”
Mil: “Maintaining FL130 on that track (Type of Service RAS/RIS)”
MACC: ”Roger. My traffic maintaining FL150 until clear of your traffic" (Could specify vertical or
horizontal separation)
Both controllers terminate the conversation by exchanging console numbers and Unit callsign.
Mil: “Roger. London Controller 15”
MACC “Manchester East”
So the issue was obviously resolve by MACC and the military sitting down, working the whole problem out and writing an instruction.
Why can't other units do the same.