OK well getting bored with this now, so a quick response and then I'll shut up.
Arkroyal
Speaking in French keeps us all aware, does it? Tell that to my friend John Andrew's family
Apart from the fact that the language spoken is outside the control of ATC, they still do a better job of managing ground traffic there because they have, as a result of such accidents, sorted themselves out. More than can be said for some UK airports.
It occurs to me that taxiing into the path of an aircraft on the takeoff roll is even more of an own-goal than hitting a stationary aircraft. If a captain is responsible for not hitting another aircraft on the ground whilst taxiing, he is sure as hell responsible for making sure the runway is clear before leaving the holding point. Or is that somehow different?
tightcircuit
Your attempts to persuade us that following a controllers instructions regardless of the consequences because you think they have the responsibility just beggars belief.
If you bothered to read the thread, you would see that I never said any such thing, in fact I said the reverse.
terrain safe
MOR If you are flying an ILS and a C172 hits you again ATC cannot physically fly the plane. They can give traffic information even avoiding action
Really? Then answer me this. Is an aircraft in the final stages of an ILS approach under a positive control service? Is a 172 in the ATZ under a positive control service? If they both are, who is responsible for separation? Particularly when the aircraft on the ILS may be IMC?
SMRs are not great at spotting how tight a gap is. Get real...
Of course they aren't. I am not suggesting for a minute that SMR can discriminate that effectively. However, seeing a possible conflict allows the controller to issue a conditional clearance ("subject the 737 at xx, cleared to continue to xxx"), or, better yet, "Hold position until the 737 has moved up to the holding point".
If the pilot of a 767 can't see his wingtip, he can never be completely assured regarding separation, can he? Now, what is ATC for? To keep aircraft from bumping into each other, from memory.
I can't quite understand why so many people, who have spent their careers being separated by ATC in the air, have such a problem with being separated by ATC on the ground.
I also find it noteworthy that nobody has seen fit to answer the questions I have posed. Too difficult, I suppose, given the assumptions many of you seem to make. Just in case anyone has the intellect to answer, I'll ask them again:
If an aircraft, the pilots of which cannot see the wingtips, taxys into a vehicle which neither pilot could see (as it was next to the wingtip), who is to blame, and why?
What is the point in a system of taxiways that are defined in accordance with a set of specifications that establish lateral clearances, if the pilot cannot assume that those clearances will protect him? In fact, what is the point in having clearances at all?
Why, when a controller issues a taxi clearance, is that clearance somehow not really a clearance, but rather a bit of advice? Given that a clearance implies that it can be safely carried out.
Why is separation on the ground assured under LVP's, but not under any other condition?
If anyone can answer those four simple questions intelligently, I'll be most impressed. "Get real" doesn't count.
I repeat, this incident is about more than just one pilot. Try thinking outside the square a bit.