The Helios accident raises the question of whether or not securing the
cockpit
in such a paranoid way is worthwhile. Which is more likely: pilot
incapacitation or hijack? It's an interesting question. If you protect
against one, you leave yourself open to the other.

Count the number of total crew incapacitations. Count the number of
terrorists hijacks. I think you'll find that there are far more
terrorist hijacks. Securing the cockpit in a paranoid way has other
drawbacks though. I tend to think a lot of the supposed security since
9/11 is "security theatre" - all for show but not hard for a
determined terrorist to get around.

The Helios flight crashed because nobody could get into the cockpit
until the
engines ran out of fuel (which shut down electrical power and unlocked
the
cockpit door), by which time it was too late. The flight attendant
probably
could have landed the aircraft with radio assistance.

Nope I don't think they could have. If they were used doors that lock
electrically rather the mechanically sound rather like a bad choice to
ward off terrorists.

I did not read anything to suggest that the cockpit door of the Helios 737
was ever locked. Admittedly, I did not see fit to research this incident at
length--and I also am not familiar with Helios procedures.

I do agree that a lot of the recent security initiatives are "security
theater" and I also believe that many have the net effect of reducing our
long term security by reducing our GDP.

The Helios case, however, seems much more interesting as an argument against
fully automated passenger carrying aircraft. Presuming that the report was
correct, regarding the outflow valve being left in manual/open; then there
is further reason to suppose that other flight crews may have found and
corrected similar errors before they became incidents or accidents.

Just a little "food for thought" ...