Which bit do you mean, Nev? 

The Great Australian Bight or the Moreton Island VFR crossing?

Either way, I tend to agree.  I'm pretty Hydrophobic myself.

Which is why I'd be clinging to the red ring of confidence trying to decide between the 3,500 shorter route or the 4,500 longer one across to Bribie.

My test flying, though, has been done in the safety of the simulator. LOL

31 minutes ago, sfGnome said:

How high do you have to be in the middle of the crossing (worst case engine failure point) to be guaranteed a glide to the other side?

There's an app to help with that too  ;- )

The Glide Assistant - Real Time in OzRwys (and other EFBs) puts a red ring around your approximate glide range based on your aircraft's published glide ratio (at best airspeed), current position and height above ground, real time wind info and local topography.

6 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Why Forest?😈

As I understand it, that was the first enroute stop where he'd have been able to get the jet fuel he needed. (Though the fuel truck would have to be arranged ahead of time.)

16 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

I think this pilots decision to fly over water just to avoid having to re fuel at forrest is very silly. Tracking coastal would only add 13 minutes @134tas to the Ceduna-Esperence leg. If the fuel is that tight you need to go to Forrest anyway. 

 

Ending up in the water in a canopy aircraft like a DA40, RV or Bristell etc is a no for me. Fair chance the aircraft will be inverted, the canopy is not going to open due water pressure if it hasn't been broken. Not a good way to go.

 

Plan for lower terrain, weather, water, simples.

Yes, agreed ... and he sort of accepts that when questioned about it in the discussion (in the Comments). Anyway, having access to his reasoning both aloft and afterwards, I found instructive, especially given that over-water legs are top of mind for us here lately. 

Yes, good point MB. I thought the same.  It's worthwhile reading the discussion in the Comments section where he answers several questions taking him to task on that choice. Fuel type was a factor, he required Jet-A1 which he apparently couldn't get at the time at the usual stops across the Nullabor.  As you say, he had Forrest as an alternate. But even so, the coastal route, as he says himself, would have added just another 40nm to his total. And, as things turned out, he could have made it with legal reserves that way but I think on his original plan even that bit extra might have put him close to his legal limit (especially if the winds turned). 

Anyway, he discusses all that very openly and helpfully in the Comments.  He was, of course, set up for ditching (as he explains). As it happened, he was always in VHF contact, and had the back up of talking to airliners on Guard. 

Of course, a lot of all that is out of the RAAus league and yet, not that far out.  Some of the mid-flight surprises he faced - and shared - could happen to any of us and for me it was good to see how a professional pilot thinks through unexpected plan changes.  And it's only in this kind of video that we get to see the pilot's problem solving in action.

Heck, his videos about flying the Citation Mustang and the DA62 are even further beyond my aeronautical ken, but (call me a tragic) I find 'em fascinating.   ;- )

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Yeah. You Expect everyone to watch something that runs for over an Hour. 

I expect nothing of the sort.

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Let me assure you that very few would. It would have to be something VERY SPECIAL would it not?. 

Obviously.  But in the context of this thread the likelihood of a reader or two finding that particular video SPECIAL enough (even useful) goes up.  I'd have thought.

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

And  Let's put it this way It takes little effort to  just post something. Much more to respond to it with words and thought  as I have done previously on this topic.. 

Clearly, a post's value does not necessarily relate to the amount of effort involved in posting it.  Plus, anyone who merely posts an article or video expects to receive nothing of the prestige due its author - or, for that matter, the originator of any comment or post coming from their own (deep) knowledge.   Master-chefs need harbour no resentment towards the waiting staff.  Diners know where compliments are due.

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Why take it so Personally? My comments concern the Vid and NOT you personally. and I would suggest in context they are a contribution..  Everyone is enttitled to say what they want to as long as it's not offensive.  We SHARE ideas.  Nev

I don't think I take it personally.  I hope not.  But I'd like to think I step in whenever I see mistaken/unjust assertions/accusations against anyone.  Of course, I'm paying more attention when I've been the poster.  Maybe I feel particularly responsible to defend the honour of the authors/pilots whom I've exposed to unfair criticism by posting their work here.  Yes, we share ideas here and we're all entitled to say what we want but that, thankfully, doesn't stop us holding each other to standards of discourse somewhat higher than that. 

Sad indeed.

Really? 

Who said anything about no stops? He stopped in Mildura and in Ceduna (and Esperance, of course).

Crikey!  Nobody has to watch the video but it is not reasonable at all to critique it (or the aviating it depicts) without watching it.

Nobody said he was an RAAus guy.  I don't see your point.  We even discuss airline accidents on here.

To me his video would be of interest to anyone thinking of doing the trip in a lightie.  But that's just me.

What are you talking about?  No reserve!!?? Did you watch the video? 

Do you have any idea of who this guy is?   

He goes into great detail about his planning and his real time assessments down to the last litre of fuel burn.

He explains it all for those who are willing to listen.

Trust is earned on YouTube as it is on any other public forum.

No one doubts that heaps of nonsense is uttered online.  We're supposed to be wise enough to discriminate. 

In this video Steve (of Diamond Air Taxis, Bankstown) shows how he made the big trip in his DA40NG.

He manages Sydney > Esperance in one (sunlit) day and then on to Jandakot the next morning.

He is ferrying his DA40 to a new buyer in the west after upgrading to a DA62 - as well as to a Citation Mustang - for his charter/taxi business.

He's put out several great videos of flights he's done in his various aeroplanes.

See here:      https://www.youtube.com/@diamondairtaxis

But the 'Satellite Map' button on OzRwys is handy for that:

CLICK FOR FULL REZ.

Yes, Lockhart looks like a great place to visit. 

Volunteers save Lockhart airfield from closure I Australian Rural & Regional News

ARR.NEWS

---

The decision to keep Lockhart Airstrip opened has proved to be a good one with a group of workers regularly toiling hard to maintain it.

Apparently weather stations are still needed to feed The Model even if satellites and AI are now the principal providers

High-Resolution Weather Models: The Key to Precision Farming - AirAgri

WWW.AIRAGRI.COM.AU

---

High-Resolution Weather Models: The Key to Precision Farming In agriculture, weather is both an ally and an adversary. The ability to predict weather accurately can transform farming practices, enhance...

But things are improving ... even beyond 6 days (according to Tom 😉

The truth behind the accuracy of weather forecasts - ABC News

WWW.ABC.NET.AU

---

Increasingly complex technology means forecasts are significantly better than they were decades ago — here's why.

7 minutes ago, johnm said:

So per the video ......... if the windscreen dissapears - then altitude cannot be maintained ? 

or is that a 'trade off' to save the side doors ?

or some other form of trade off ?

(don't know) 

That issue was discussed a bit in the Comments of the follow up video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FDI1Q4Z5pY&t=332s

@Cornstalker7273

Kind of hard to imagine that the plane would not climb with no windshield  ... //

 

It wasn’t just a windshield, both doors were gone. It was aerodynamically as dirty as it could possibly get. If I could have held the beans to it I might could have climbed a little or maintained but the prop wash was so severe it was almost impossible to deal with it. I had to clear a ridge to get to the nearest airport. Never pass up a decent landing site in your search for something better. Sometimes better ain’t ahead of you. My options if the gamble to forge on didn’t pan out were not acceptable.

 

21 minutes ago, Roundsounds said:

Sounds like you need some training in Situational Awareness. A big part of SA is projecting what threats you may encounter. 

Just because he does it his way doesn't mean he "needs some training".

Let's Go Aviate's latest take:

The pilot posted this in the comments in a follow up video:

No news here ... just a basic recap:

3 hours ago, Marty_d said:

The 2 storey thing gets me.  Every segment on the second floor has to be movable.  Having a carousel on single floor makes sense, and it'd be cheaper to build another one next to it. Plus, that way you fit 10 (in 2 buildings) because you don't have to leave a segment free.

Yes, simple, single level circular hangars would make more sense in most places. As the designer admitted:

“Where I live in Canada there is a lot of wide-open space around the airports where people are free to build hangars. So, there’s not an appetite ... for something more complicated. I need an airport that has limited space and a long waiting list for hangar space.” 

Yeah,  I think the image with the aircraft inside gives a pretty good idea of scale.

By the look of it, though, it's probably more compact than your usual 9 aircraft hangar.

And every machine is in poll position.  Nice.