In hazard and risk analysis there are often some hazards that although extremely rare/very very low probability - are totally unacceptable. I believe that this is one of those events. These events must be prevented rather than saying as you imply (or as can be inferred from what you say) millions of people fly every year this was only 149 that's an infinitesimally small risk, therefore, we can just shrug our shoulders and say we still meet the target level of safety. That does not wash with an unacceptable hazard, especially one that may have relatively simple mitigation.
Ian
of course its totally unacceptable as was 9/11 but 9/11 and the reactions to 9/11 have cost $billions in the way it changed the face of airports, inconvenience to the flying public and lost time to Industry. It has made flying a tedious, stressful form of travel with massive delays at airports and a loss of human liberty
Some of the very protections against another 9/11 have facilitated this equally awful act.( the security door) Because it was that system designed to keep terrorists out which Lubitz studied days before with a fundamental flaw in its system to make his awful plans a possibility
Most things are possible but they also come with a huge cost as the reactions to 9/11 showed.
This is not a time for emotional reactions a time for political intervention a time for knee jerk or ill thought out legislation or even a time for the Multi Billion $ security industry to see an opportunity for making more money but a time for calm and practical look at how another Lubitz can be deterred from ever doing this again.
i stress the word Deterred rather than stopped because there has to be a balance.
High in that contemplation must be the fact thats its unlikely that another Lubitz will ever do this again, A one off awful action by a very damaged and disturbed mind who somehow escaped notice not only by the medical world but also his colleagues who he worked and trained with.
Any action has to be balanced by the cost not just in money terms but by further restrictions making aviation less attractive to the paying public as happened with 9/11 but also to the would be pilots of the future who will not see flying as a desirable career to follow.
i have been flying for 30 years and i do so because I enjoy what I do! The day I don't enjoy what I do because it all becomes a mass of hassle is the day to hang up your hat and do something else and probably most pilots are the same.
Anything you do will carry a cost and also a price and as in this case may also open up a risk to another equally unforeseen but unlikely tragic event. Will the PERCEIVED benefits out way the negatives of any such action ?