maybe he was too busy flying to have time to give ATC his life story
Agreed and understood. In this case, I have the recording. (You can get it too, LiveATC.net just before 13:15 yesterday afternoon, Mountain time.)
He'd flown a little ways out before turning back. It wasn't an "impossible turn" type of timing.
He talked plenty. If the words had only been slightly different he would have had Public Safety folks on-scene 15 minutes sooner. 15 minutes is a long time if he'd have been trapped under the aircraft or the aircraft had caught fire.
All I'm saying is the reluctance to declare is still out there. "Mayday, engine trouble, returning." is only four words plus a tail number. I'm not saying this to change his ways, I'm saying it to share my thoughts on changing my ways when launching off of 10.
He did a good job and survived. No question. There's always room for the rest of us to learn.
Especially at KAPA where just a few weeks ago the controllers themselves briefed 100 pilots in attendance at the annual "Fireside chat" (ironic name, perhaps?

) that they sit in chairs facing the 35/17 complex and in busy situations they're not actively looking at the 10/28 environment.
Their sight lines are effectively blocked for much of its length which is why there's no controlled ramp area East of Alpha.
If it weren't for two eyewitnesses to the landing and one person monitoring their handheld, if the pilot had been unconscious it would have been a lot longer than 15 minutes before anyone came looking. Airport Ops was notified quickly but they were searching the ramp. No one went to the field until the pilot and/or one of the witnesses called on a cell phone.
I've landed 28 at night when Tower/Ground are operated single-frequency and only been quizzed about my status as I was shutting down in front of my hangar a long time after landing. If I'd have tossed an engine and managed to go into that field at night, no one would even know I was gone. The controller calling was just looking to toss my flight strip out of his rack into the bin. If I didn't answer on the ramp there's be a cursory check by Airport Ops in their pickup truck, they'd probably assume the aircraft was in a hangar, and until someone saw the wreckage in the field, I'd be effectively "lost" but assumed ok. It'd depend a lot on how far away the Ops truck was and whether or not they could convince themselves that I had enough time to taxi in, shut down, and put the aircraft in the hangar.
Thinking it through, I think a good way to handle it would be a procedure change for 28 landing clearances. "Cleared to land Runway 28, report exiting the runway."
That way if the Tower didn't get an exit announcement they'd send the cavalry, even though there's nothing controlled once you leave 28, there'd be a final double check that you actually arrived. It'd embarrass a few pilots every year, but there'd be no loss of continuity between the landing clearance and exiting the controlled area.
Not as big a problem at night. Traffic is lighter. Daytime on a weekend though, that frequency was pretty full. When they split frequency the Tower it's to split the 35R/17L runway from 35L/17R. The controller handling 35R/17L retains control over 10/28 since its on their "half" of the airport.
No placing any blame on the pilot or controller. Just looking at it for ways to improve procedures (both pilots and controllers) at my home 'drome.
Because that farm field is there the arrival to 28 at night is a bit of a "black hole" other than the storage units on about a 1/2 mile final. You can disappear into that hole.
Kinda reminds me of the radio chatter after Eastern 401 disappeared into the Everglades. Might as well change my personal briefing and procedures when launching off of 10 to enhance someone's ability to notice I'm gone, especially if it's an engine problem.