Crab:
I don't think anyone could argue that what he did was 'wrong' and 'broke the rules' and he has been punished for it. I think that a lot of annoyance has been caused by your black and white interpretation of a situation where Mr Armstrong was widely thought of as being a 'good bloke' for 'having a go', which generally people approve of in New Zealand.
As a serial offender he was smacked by the CAA but I don't think you will find many people who would condemn him outright even for that - sometimes it is necessary to improvise when facilities that are enjoyed by European countries are not available and there is a tremendous desire to help others in distress - remember the 'community spirit' that used to exist in the UK? Sometimes 'rules' may be broken to achieve that.
You are correct in stating that there are times when it becomes impossible to complete a task because all the odds are stacked against succeeding, but at other times, where there is a better chance of success, there are always critics who will pick the thing apart afterwards with the benefit of hindsight to say it would have been better if.....
The rescue services must be trained to the highest degree possible and of course there are times when a rescue attempt is not possible. Perhaps a little less strident condemnation in hindsight of those who have not made what you consider the 'right' decisions would cause a little less annoyance to others and fewer personal attacks in 2016?