In article ,
Ed Wischmeyer wrote:
From a purely professional point of view -
There are no reasons to outrun your fuel supply...
only excuses.

That kind of pontification might well wait until some facts are in. For
example, suppose headwinds are forecast are 40 knots, his contingency
planning is 60 knots, and the winds turn out to be 100 knots?

A few facts might make a lot of difference in this discussion.

The kind of scenario you offer as a possibility would appear to just show
"sadly deficient" contingency planning.

If he ran into headwinds that were SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than _anything_
_ever_previously_recorded_, one can "possibly" make a case, depending on the
quality of the historical data. However, CONTINUING to push ahead, in the
face of such =unanticipated= obstacles, _past_ the "point of no return" to
a safe harbor can only be described as "stupid".

This is not to say that Johanson is that kind of "stupid". Available
reportage indicates that 'higher than anticipated/forecast' headwinds were
encountered, and after pressing to a point where it became clear that he
could not complete the original flight, he diverted to a *pre-planned*
emergency abort point. Available evidence indicates he "assumed", *without*
*confirming*, that persons there "would" provide assistance for him to get
the rest of the way 'back to civilization'.