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.....
FD2 - the benefit of hindsight is what you and others are using because Mr Armstrong was successful - what I keep trying to get across is that you would have viewed it very differently had the outcome been less favourable.
I am all for 'good blokes' and 'having a go' but the notion that because he was a 'good bloke having a go' therefore makes him a local hero rather than an irresponsible risk-taker seems to be viewed through the rose-tinted specs of national pride and manly stereotyping.
Please be assured that community spirit very much still exists in the Motherland and the rough diamond who sometimes bends or breaks the rules to get the right outcome still finds admirers here.
The trouble is - how far do you bend or break those rules and which ones do you fracture? That is a very long debate and context becomes vital when assessing the right or wrong in such cases.
In Mr Armstrong's case, the law in your country said he was wrong and punished him accordingly, the press coverage and public opinion (or some of it at least) romanticised the reason for him breaking the law and taking liberties with other peoples safety.
If it had just been him, flying the aircraft to pick up a casualty and recover him to hospital - a one-flight, mission of mercy when no-one else could do it - I would be more inclined to your point of view but that isn't what happened.
An analogy might be the off-duty policewoman persuading several onlookers who were not as capable in the water, of joining her in the rescue of the swimmers. She only risked her own life (although she was following her partner who was ahead of her), not that of others and that is what, in my mind, differentiates the hero/heroine from the foolhardy.