It actually seemed to work quite well. Over N'Djamena (and CPDLC), all lights on and everyone on the flight deck. Nipped up to FL350 JNB-LHR, hour or so later, aircraft appearing 1000' above and below.

Dontoit : I was being sarcastic. I should have added the adequate smilies, sorry.
And , no I do not fly at night above central Africa when I can avoid it, but that was even before RVSM.

successful
 

to all you who were doubting our capability.....RVSM going on smoothly in Africa........yeees...even over DRC.....shame on all y'all doubting thomas'

RVSM
 

It was already pretty dangerous BEFORE RVSM.
But now! Just imagine all of those non-complying IFBC 126.9 having no free levels for escape...:confused:
We'd better use night goggles!:sad:
VF

I've retired. I flew N/S to Asmara, Addis, Nairobi, and J'berg from the 70's to the 00's, and to Kano E/W. RVSM would seem to limit dangers inherent in Africa's ridiculous ATC, by giving 2 more flight levels for separation than before. All you people berating RVSM...consider the congestion if there were just Flight Levels every 4000'...concentrating traffic like this would be very dangerous. Every 2000' better, every 1000' twice as better. Where am I going wrong? Stupid Sam?

RVSM without properly certified aircraft altimeters, very dangerous.
Is there any oneheight monitoring unit in Africa?

Central Africa is the main problem. N'djamena isn't too bad & close to Khartoum is ok (radar coverage), but in the Kano region...forget it!

I would feel a lot safer if the whole continent had radar coverage, but it isn't going to happen for a long time.

I would like to know what the percentage of aircraft transmit IFBP, I am guessing it is going to rise, especially at crossings!

More likely to get ADS-B rather than RADAR.

nice thing.but you better watch your TCAS and listen carefully 126.9

Good advice BUT that always assumes that the adversary switches on the transponder and transmits on 126.9:rolleyes:

It is more likely that the conflict will be with the above rather than the good scheduled carriers. A moonless night over Africa in the clouds could result in a fraught several hours.

To the poster who said shame on those who doubted the ability of the African states to implement RVSM I urge caution; 1 swallow does not a summer make; ie 1 night/1 week without incident does not spell success.

Next down through the conflict zone in about 2 weeks with a full moon:ok:

RVSM implementation is a complicated affair, certification of aircraft, crews and procedures well established in many parts of the world. Africa? Not by a long shot, too many unregistered and independent cowboys in sub-standard aircraft operating there, at flight levels of their own choosing. Altitude and heading deviations due weather are frequent, and unmonitored by any ground agency. Dangerous enough as it is, why reduce separation even further?

Whose brilliant idea was this anyways?

The 'cowboys' don't all fly for obscure outfits and fly clapped out DC8s or Antonovs. A couple of years ago, on my way to Jo'burg, I watched a 747 belonging to the flag carrier of a major European nation that is somewhere on a straight line between Dover and Zurich climb up through my level about three miles away. No TCAS return, no radio calls frfom him, no acknowledgement of my calls on my current ATC freq, 126.9, or 121.5 - and ATC, when I got through to them, knew nothing about him.

For those asking how did I know it was a flag carrier of the nation I mentioned, it was because he was close enough for both of us to see, not just his tail logo, but the name of the airline on his fueslage.

Back to the more traditional African cowboys, I've met crews in SA who flew those all white DC8s who quite openly told me that they usually flew straight line routes to places they couldn't mention (with freight they couldn't mention) no radio and no flight plan once they crossed the SA border (for the very good reason they couldn't admit to going where they were going). That was some years ago now, when there were a few more large-ish wars raging in Africa that there may be now. With RVSM now in place, I hope such operators are flying at +500' of standard levels - and that they've got good altimeters.

Rvsm
 

Sorry for being thick but what does RVSM stand for :)

Cater

It stands for Reduced Vertical Seperation Minima, and permits 1000 feet vertical seperation between aircraft on the same route. Formerly, over Africa we had 2000 feet between aircraft on the same route.

What folks are squawkin' about is quite right - in Africa where procedural control is pretty much in effect over the entire continent, with irrelevant minor exceptions, it puts more aircraft in the sky 'n closer proximity to one another.

Political correctness aside, African ATC is tragic. Most airfields don't even report an hourly METAR and their procedural competence is marginal.

This is an accident lookin' fer a place ta happen.

Heads-up over Africa Ladies 'n Gents!

Ethiopian Airlines :*- Start monitoring and using 126.9 iaw the IFBP soon! Ya dummies!:*

RVSM
 

Err,

Reduced Vertical Separation Minima, I think. It started in the late 1990s in Europe. Prior to that, the cruise Flight-Levels 300, 320, 340, 360, 380, 400, 420, etc., only existed on NAT tracks or for the Military. Prior to that, there was 2000-foot separation between opposite direction traffic above FL290. This had been mainly due to limited accuracy in altimetry.

But we used to use those levels unofficially for short-term do-it-yourself separation over Africa, using the blind-broadcast 126.9MHz to make arrangements with other aircraft.

Hope this helps.

You're assuming that both aircraft have fully functioning active TCAS systems installed (a passive TCAS system will not function without interrogation, or out of range, from appropriately equipped ground radars), a questionable proposition in Africa, at best.

In any event, the probability of collision over the dark continent is likely not so different as it was twenty years ago. In the seemingly endless resources of the Africa pilot, God’s own in my humble opinion, a good measure of ‘there but for the grace of the Almighty go I’ seems to be among the more common of solutions.

Atco749 : My friend , RVSM implementation has nothing to do with national pride but is rather a checklist to follow : if all the boxes are ticked you can go ahead. My information is that not all the boxes are ticked in some African States today as we speak.

From your title I asume you are a front line controller, so even if your bosses or ASECNA declares that the boxes are all ticked, that you all have been trained properly and that all the letters of agreements, including contingency measures, are signed between all the ATC units , I would do like St Thomas as ask to see the list and the signatures. Because if 2 hit each other ,you know that the controller handling the mike will be the one going to jail , not them.

So I will not listen too much to the Nationalistic pride song " we can do it like Europe " but make sure all the boxes are ticked.

Bonne chance mon ami, et fais bien attention.

Why do people keep banging on about a lack of radar over Africa in relation to RVSM? There is no radar over the Atlantic, Pacific, Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean not to mention parts of the Arabian Peninsula, South and South-East Asia, Australia and I dare say elsewhere yet RVSM seems to work without the wailing and nashing of teeth.

Lack of radar coverage does not make RVSM dangerous, lack of effective Air Traffic Control does. Judging by some of the places I've operated it doesn't even have to be that good but being able to get in contact at some point is a good start :cool:

I think the St Thomas' amongst us are bound by the universal truism that explains all shortcomings south of the Med: "It's Africa!"