So to all you "Expert Commentators" I suggest you wait until at least a preliminary ASTB report is issued and let Andrew memory be a testament to him.
That's just a whole bunch of rose-tinted emotion talking. And we already know that the report won't help us much.
The simple reality is that the pilot made a series of choices that resulted in two deaths.
All the evidence so far is that the aircraft was perfectly controllable until the moment of impact (even if it meant shutting down the second engine and "deadsticking" it in to the first available open space (of which there are many if you care to look at Google Earth), so it wasn't the aircraft's fault.
Perhaps the most distressing part of this discussion is the apparent refusal by some to accept that the pilot in command is ultimately responsible for his actions. I would imagine that Andrew, judging by the testimony of those who knew him, would be the first to hold his hand up and admit that the outcome would have been very different if he had made different decisions.
For me, the decision about whether to go to Bankstown or Richmond isn't the most vital one, although it is important. The really vital decision that needed to be made was to recognise when the situation had deteriorated to the point where there were few options left, and then pick a landing spot and go for it while there was still enough height in the bank to ensure a successful outcome. It seems that decision was left too late.
Part of being a professional is recognising that you live and die with your decisions, and in aviation, the penalties for making the wrong ones can be severe. Whatever you decide in aviation, you own the result.
In this case, the outcome wasn't random or dictated by chance. It was a direct result of the decisions that were made. End of story.
I know some of you take offence when I am blunt like that, but FFS we are supposed to be professionals. Time we acted like it.