Finally, since the aircraft is certified to fly safely on one engine in certain abnormal circumstances, under which this incident would seem to fall, then is it right to talk about the irresponsibility of flying over central London in such a condition?
No, it is not.
Unless of course it's known for sure that they shut down the wrong engine.
Indeed.
Ornis:
Your argument is poorly presented, black and white, acceptable not acceptable. The fact is that it is acceptable in some circumstances.
In a democracy, the people's representatives do decide, in general terms, what is acceptable, not airline pilots. They have one vote like anyone else. That is clearly demonstrated by some noise abatement procedures that may not suit pilots.
You are mixing domains here between policy development and the execution of an emergency procedure. The noise abatement procedures were developed for a variety of reasons, over time, between government and the industry. The reasons included people building homes and businesses under already established departure corridors and then bitching about the noise. It took a combined effort to get the procedures codified
to balance flight safety and public interest.
Likewise, the crew on that damaged aircraft had
to balance their immediate need for returning a distressed but STILL FLYING aircraft to the field, the public interest you mention, and the choices of airfield ... versus time and risk of no longer having a flying aircraft before touchdown ... given that at the time the extent of the damage beyond missing cowls as unknown.
To repeat myself, you don't get a vote in that situation (nor do I).
The democracy (and a few despotic sorts) have already put into place the public interest input via a whole series of qualification requirements, coded into law, operational constraints (see also speed restrictions at some altitudes) and the requirement that the pilot is required to get his crew, craft, and passengers safely to earth.
The pilot in command balances the competing intersts in a brief time, not over hours or years, and then makes a decision to get his crew, craft, and passengers back to terra firma.
That too is In The Public Interest.
In the event an aircraft is stricken on take-off or climb-out there may be no option but to continue over dense populations. And crash onto people, as Concorde did.
Indeed, that is a risk society takes in keeping the airports operational in densely populated areas. THIS burden isn't all on aircraft operators. Your veiled allusion to it being so is wrong due to cherry picking areas of interest. The interests interact, which is how policy, and policy changes, are formed.
In the event of a damaged aircraft from any aerodrome needing to land promptly there may be choices. That is a simple fact.
Of course. This crew, as I mentioned above, used the judgment they are expected to exercise as part of getting the certification to carry passengers.
To repeat myself, like it or not, the people on the ground do have an interest, and, in a general sense, a say.
That interest is already accounted for in the regs, rules and training processes, and certification.
Once the event hits, You Get No Vote, and I don't either. With that said, pilots of the professional sort are already attuned to the matter of populated areas as part of their professional development. They are aware of the public interest with each take off.
Happily severely damaged aircraft don't request or demand to overfly London or other conurbations regularly. Because, I suggest, it would not be acceptable.
The industry and regulatory domains agree, indeed, that in most cases, it's not preferred, but in some cases it must be.
So, in some cases it is acceptable. Your black and white framing of this matter is, to repeat myself, out of line.
(We may actually agree more than we disagree on this, and it may also be a matter of word choice which presents your argument in a poor light to me).
I have tried to edit this response to keep it civil, but if I have failed, please accept my apologies.