If you clicked on my link that door has already cost 1 aircraft so it's not a pure win. http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/26/europe/france-germanwings-plan...

Passengers fighting back only works if they know there is a problem and the attackers are in the passenger cabin. Once the attacker is past that door they can ignore them.

Agreed. There is always going to be risk. Especially if the pilot has gone rouge. But the chances of passenger(s) taking over a plane like on 9/11 had drastically decreased because of awareness and those doors.

>Especially if the pilot has gone rouge

What have you got against pink pilots?

I feel every seat should have a switch to allow passengers to vote. A majority vote should either open the pilot's door, or put an emergency autopilot in charge which will try to land at the nearest airport.

I think the best option is to remove pilots in the first place. If physical access does not let you take over the aircraft then there is little meaning to attacking aircraft vs other random crouds of people.

US military drones have actual weapons and they are not hacked so that part seems to work well.

That door combined with the airline allowing someone to be alone in the cockpit. I don't know if it's a regulatory requirement or just a practice but U.S. airlines don't leave a pilot alone. I think this practice predates the adoption of reinforced doors and is a sound one, whatever ability you might have to get through a non-reinforced door is going to be hard to follow if a suicidal pilot goes into a nose-dive.