Meanwhile ...
I'd like to offer some defense of underfire . . . about sanctions of crew, and whether anyone other than drivers situated in what they refer to as pointy ends can hold responsibility at the system and systemic level.
First, it is akin to civilian control of the military (notwithstanding any deficits in current U.S., uh, personages). The civil aviation system in the U.S. and Canada and really now, in probably a significant majority of ICAO member states, exists organically within a legal structure, a governmental structure. As supreme as the aviators are within their realm and in certain respects outside of it, they are not the ultimate responsible parties, by themselves, at the system and governmental level. I don't think this is a controversial view. Or, it shouldn't be controversial.
Second, there actually is no reason to impute to underfire's views - or to the views of anyone who advocates at the very least, for consideration of the most severe sanction available - any disregard for the safety inquiry and improvement processes. As a prior post quite nicely said, it is not either/or. Is there even a single example which can be provided where, because a crew with stuffed-up results on their record were given a heavy sanction rather than a milder one, safety inquiry and system improvement suffered, even suffered at all?
Not least, there is a case to be made for something that sounds harsh, and is harsh. Sometimes the unjustness which appears to be visited upon one or a small handful of individuals is, when weighed in a significantly larger context, justified. It is being emphasized, over and over here, that the set of causal factors likely to be found and reported by the formal and official investigation will include a number of things; . . . . the lighting obviously on the taxiway and runway, the attentional tunneling problem that has been aped about, maybe the approach set-up in the airspace architecture and as specified in procedures and for equipment lacking certain avionics, and even the bugaboo fatigue and "daily timeclock routine" (aka rhythm of circadian type). So, if one believes these factors were present or might have been present, in some combination or even all of them, then maybe the right approach is to make an example out of this crew. The unfairness to them, such as it might be, could be worth the slap-across-the-chops the example would give to others. This is not what I am saying obviously must be done or needs to be done. Still it is a case to be stated and pondered. This was a very, very close call, was it not? And if it had gone into accident mode, I don't think anyone yet can say "well the physics of the situation show us that the extent of needless death and destruction would have been no more or less than X" - but we can say with reasonable confidence that if it had gone into accident mode there would have been at least many serious injuries if not fatalities. So, from this standpoint, underfire's clamor for the most severe sanction is a reasonable point of view, and the option must be in the mix of possible outcomes. In sum, a near-accident that has the appearance - at the very least - of having been horrible had it turned into an accident, may warrant severe sanction, once all the facts are determined and officially charged rapporteurs have had their day in print.