My thoughts, per the OP's request:
As has been mentioned, deferral of maintenance action was not a good idea. Head's should have rolled for this alone. According to the discipline handed out, it would seem that this was the gross error in this incident, and the handling of the emergency the lesser error.
The automated systems on advanced aircraft, especially combat aircraft, are difficult at best to truly understand (more fun to untangle Christmas tree lights). And they tend to take care of themselves quite capably and unnoticed right up to the point of complete failure. This makes it difficult to diagnose problems airborne, as well as fix problems while on the ground.
Single pilots are taught to use the second radio for CRM, talking to either another pilot in the flight or a squadron duty officer on the ground. This allows one to aviate, another, less encumbered pilot to evaluate and offer a course of action. However, the pilot with the problem is the one who 'signed for the jet' and ultimately has the final say. It seems in this case, a pilot in training, talking to a senior, experienced pilot on the ground, was led (possibly told to make) a decision to pass up a perfectly good runway. This is understandable, but possibly not excusable. His future will be / has been determined by an evaluation board, which will take into account all training to date, not just this one incident. This is a proper course of action.
Without current procedures in front of me, I am not sure if the situation was a 'Land as soon as practical' or 'Land as soon as possible'. If the former, there is always considerable discussion on exactly what 'practical' means. But procedures are written in blood, and always up for review.
And I very much agree that the forgiving father of the family is a very, very honorable man.
