The PIC of this particular aircraft has demonstrated highly competent skills in being able to get his fully-loaded, crippled aircraft, back onto the deck in one piece, with no injuries or fatalities, and he needs to be lauded for his excellent airmanship.
Yes, he did avoid fatalities (doesn't say that anyone avoided injuries though does it?), but why should it be acceptable that a multi-engine aircraft in this day and age, can't make a return to land at the airfield? Why is it ok that we accept a landing anywhere other than an airfield in this situation?
I see age as a major issue onetrack. No matter how good the maintenance, no matter how experienced the pilot in some circumstances, these aircraft rarely will perform as they were designed to in 1975. A bit of a twist here, small bend there, a patch on the airframe from some previous corrossion or other damage, years and years of operating in constant thermal turbulence (who says all the pilots who have flown them always brought the aircraft back to turbulence penetration speed?), all adds up enough to not get performance from these airframes.
Unfortunately, until we have a regulator and a government who see's this as an issue, there'll be no support for new airframes and the downward spiral of GA will continue.
morno