One can't help but wonder whether maintaining speed at say 100 ft wouldn't have been preferable to struggling up to 200 ft - especially when you look how close Le Bourget's threshold is.
As a PPL I was astonished at how long he went on flying straight ahead, since it seemed as though even a very, very, very gently banked turn (into the draggy side of the aircraft and the dead engines) would have put Le Bourget 'bang on the nose'. One almost wonders whether he wasn't holding it straight when it's natural inclination would have been to head towards Le Bourget anyway. I know, I know, never turn back, never trade height for manoeuvre, but if I always thought that if you don't have to move your head or eyes to see it, you can treat it as being straight ahead anyway!
If I'm talking out of my hat, then would this kind of gentle turn have been possible if the FE hadn't shut down the No.2?
Looking at the open country available, would a controlled crash landing have killed fewer people?
PS: Guv. Sorry - absolutely no intention to hide the fact that professionally I'm an aviation journo (mainly defence) - hence the unscrupulous signature - my only excuse for not making it even more clear is that over on mil pilots, where I lurk most of the time, everyone knows that I'm this particular type of pond-life. However, I am a recreational pilot, and I like to think that I'm
a) aviation sympathetic and aviation friendly.
b) committed to doing my research properly and telling the stories responsibly, and in a way which is broadly helpful to the aviation community which I think of myself as being part of.
c) willing and eager to be educated by those who know better.
So to all of you who've contributed so far, a very hearty thank you!