It's an interesting exercise in perception vs reality.
Extraordinary outcome = hero
Same circumstances, bad outcome = villain.
Does the (relatively) good outcome from the autoland events you refer to make us less critical of the acts and omissions which led to the event?
Tony Kern wrote an excellent entry in his blog in which he compared the Hudson River ditching with a very similar "event" in Eastern Europe, which makes exactly this point. The outcomes of these events can be determined by completely random factors such as water temperature or the availability of boats to rescue your pax. Without taking anything away from Sullenberger, he points out that the failure to hit the ditch switch may have caused a very different outcome in only slightly different circumstances.
Although I disagree in my interpretation, I understand the point you're making about "planning". Should he perhaps have planned for an alternate? Isn't that the crux of it?