barbk gave several examples of how machines and process design can reduce human error. There's nothing we can do to undo the terrible error that happened, but there may be -- in fact, there's likely to be -- things we can do to prevent tragic errors like this from happening again.
I probably should have been clearer because I'm sure there are things we can prevent from happening with machines. But a pilot who moves onto the runway without permission?
In Frankfurt, there is verbal clearance and communication but more and more data is also transmitted digitally. There are two pilots who are both in on the communication with air traffic control, at least, on the ground. Nothing and I mean nothing, ever moves without the tower knowing about it and/or the tower's permission. And planes always have the right of way and that includes emergency vehicles with lights and sirens because planes are just too big and heavy to be flexible.
Back in 1990, my parents and I were on a plane that had a near miss in JFK (we had landed and were taxing to the terminal for which the plane had to cross a runway where a plane was taking off. We were lucky because our pilot was able to hit the breaks. Hydraulics were broken afterwards, we spent two hours on the tarmac because the plane had to be towed to the terminal and I had a concussion because my head crashed against the tray table (and yes, I was wearing my seat belt, the pilot just hit the breaks so hard and I'm grateful he did) but, luckily for us, that was it).
There also have been a number of near-collisions as of late and yes, the interview does mention outdated technology in the US (and that they're using an outdated communication system is scary but also not news, unfortunately).
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/w...se-in-near-collisions-of-commercial-airplanes
With that said, is Japan as behind with their technology? It seems hard to believe but maybe they are and if they, too, have an outdated communication system then it doesn't absolve the pilot of his responsibilities but this tragedy would be on whoever is responsible for upgrading the technology (as well. (And it would be an even bigger tragedy if a simple upgrade of a communication system could have saved those lost lives and prevented this accident)).
But given that a fully booked A330neo weighs 240 tons at take-off for an overseas flight which is the equivalent of 12 fully loaded (German) coaches, the coast guard plane had the intention of entering the runway and planes that have all of their fuel on board ignite really quickly, I have my doubts that there is any other technology that can make a plane stop quickly enough to avoid this kind of collision each and every time. (Although, if the Japanese coast guard is anything like the coast guard in the western world then they may have operated an older plane in which case the materials used may not have been as fire proof as commercial airliners are).
But as I said, what I said applies to this particular kind of accident and not others. There are things in life that I think can't be prevented, no matter how many safety measures (human and machine) you put into place because neither human nor machine is infallible.
