The pilots mostly think the pilots did an amazing job and cannot be blamed for anything, if they missed the walkaround it's because it's too hard to lie down, god forbid
The pilots (and cabin crew) did their job to the letter once the engines encountered problems. They safely got back on the ground and evacuated the aircraft in textbook fashion. That the aircraft got airborne in an unsafe condition is a separate issue that will be thoroughly investigated. What the (very few) pilots contributing to this thread have said, is that there are a number of factors at play here that could have led to the cowl latches not being secured closed. It isn't simply a case of people not being "bothered" to complete checks and inspections properly.
I think most rational people assume that a pilot, amongst all his decisions, considers the impact on people on the ground. 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
All this media-esque chatter about avoiding built up areas really is the preserve of sky news anchors who have to fill air time. Look at it this way, if an aircraft lost both its engines over London tomorrow what do you think the captain of that aircraft would elect to do - look out the window and locate a field with no houses that he can crash into? Or find the longest runway available (Heathrow) and attempt to save the lives of everyone aboard by landing there? In a Hollywood script he may well head for the farmers field. I can assure you in real life he would head for the runway and not worry himself unduly that he might be flying over a few houses to get there. The root cause of this hand wringing about the rights of those the aircraft may fly over comes from mis-guided and entirely sensationalistic media coverage. The Captain of the BA aircraft involved in this incident elected to fly an aeroplane that was flying perfectly safely back into Heathrow because that was the safest option available to him. At no point was anyone under the flight path in danger.
What you need to understand (and you are not alone on this thread) is that no pilot ever plans to crash. So this decision making process you suggest that must involve a risk analysis of how many houses we might take out if we were to hit the deck is I'm afraid a bit of a misnomer. If an aircraft encounters problems we consider the safest course of action to get back on the ground. How long we have to make the decision, how soon we need to be on the ground, where/how we are going to land and what we may need to do once safely on the deck are some (but not all) major parts of the process. Whose house we fly over on the way to the best available airport is the least of our worries. It's not that we don't care, it's just we are planning to land safely, nothing short of that.
Sensible pilots I've heard value a life on the ground as much as one in their plane. And in situations where going to another airport doesn't extend risk to the aircraft, but does reduce risk to the ground, that is what they do.
I'm not too sure what this mythical problem is that would render an approach to an airport unsafe to those on the ground but would present no risk to those in the aircraft. If anyone has any examples of such a strange situation then lets hear them. I can only refer you to my point above. The crew of this aircraft chose a perfectly safe option and landed at heathrow. At no point was anyone in danger on the ground.
I know this is a pilots club and I'll be shot down.
Pprune (R&N in particular) ceased to be a pilots club some time ago. It is now largely the preserve of armchair quarterbacks, enthusiasts and amateurs. I present you this thread as a prime example. You are perfectly entitled to an opinion, but you have made some suggestions and offered some assumptions that I'm afraid are entirely wide of the mark.