As regards the "aeronautical decision making", please think about
this. For a long time in the US, there has been the teaching of "Say
200 Feet out loud". Meaning, that this is THE decision point for an
air tow. If you are at or above 200 feet, you can safely make a 180
to land. So, they say. Then, they put on the caveat, "conditions
permitting". This means a lot of things. Airspeed, wind,
obstructions to either side, runway behind (but soon to be ahead of)
you, glide path altering capability, etc. But, things may not be the
same for a ground launch.

Our example. Pressure from the film crew to "just do it". Pilot
knows he can do a 180 to a landing the other direction from 200 feet
in his plane. He has done it many times before, as he instructs in
the plane. Decides he can probably do it from a little less, as he
always has time and altitude for openning the air brakes after the 180
in order to land and not go off the end of the runway. So, it will be
"OK" to do this from a just over 200 foot long rope, and maybe not a
full 200 feet of altitude. More pressure from the film crew, either
real or imagined. Being paid to do this. It will be OK. I believe
he likely had no real concerns about this, as he had done all the
parts before. Ground launch. Low altitude rope breaks. Turn around
to land the other direction. He just had not done them all at the
same time.

I can see in my mind exactly how this could have played out. He ended
up at an altitude that would permit a safe return to landing the
opposite direction, but without the airspeed required to do it.
Please think about this for your training and day to day flying. The
turn around to land the other direction depends not just on potential
energy, but total energy. I think the plan was to be at the end of
the runway, at a bit under 200 feet, but full normal pattern speed.
This is the part that fell short of the plan. With results we have
all read about.

As Hank says, FWIW.
Steve Leonard