On the over London issue. Especially in planes/loadings where there could be more deaths on ground than on board. Until this incident I've never seen pilots before say people on the ground bear no consideration in their decision making. The arrogance displayed on this thread is breathtaking, some pilots really do take their 'commander had the right' far too literally and seem to think you can break any law in the land and if you save 3 people and kill 500 that's fine.
You need to learn how to read. What you said there, bolded, is a false characterization of the discussion.
I think most rational people assume that a pilot, amongst all his decisions, considers the impact on people on the ground.
As I explained in some detail before, the consideration for avoiding populated areas under various conditions is part and parcel to what professional aviators, aviation companies, and the regulatory agencies establish as a baseline.
The "all or nothing" nonsense is what I objected to before, and the lie that you just wrote (in bold) is what I object to now.
Remember: the plane was still under power,
and still flying.
Go back and read that sentence again.
Consider the profound difference between this scenario, and the problem Sully was faced with when he had a twin engine failure. Part of his decision process was to avoid landing in a densely populated area. There were pilots second guessing that decision (and some posted here on PPRuNe in the thread dedicated to that incident) claiming he ought to have dead sticked it into one of the nearby airports. That's a risk he had to weigh in a very short period of time, and make a decision. For my money, the right one.
Funnily enough, most pilots agreed with his decision.
As to the preflight issue, your characterization is again a lie regarding this extended discussion.
There are a lot of pilots who have posted in this thread who are critical of what appears to be a blown pre flight inspection.
Your summary is no better than bird feces.