Originally Posted by
itsnotthatbloodyhard
No, I’m not arguing there are no principles to be learned - don’t put words in my mouth. (In fact I believe that sound basic principles might sometimes be more useful than 16 pages of exhaustive analysis …) I’m arguing something completely different - that if you want to repeatedly question and criticise the actions of someone who’s dealt successfully with an emergency, you need a solid understanding of what they experienced, what options they considered, and why they chose the course of action they did. That understanding has been absent here.
A solid understanding because there may be some minutiae that can rise up and require a completely different decision?
I'm putting it to you that following a midair collision there is no way a pilot can ascertain the extent of the damage to the airframe and the degree to which the airworthiness has been compromised.
In that case, and with an abundance of caution, the PIC, should consider avoiding flying over built-up area if there is an airport that allows that.
Now what minutiae will rise up and change these 2 principles?