El Al security published a real god report on both check in and flight deck security a few years before 9/11. Alas I can't find it, but the main conclusion was that the flight deck must be isolated from the cabin in flight and the only way that can be done safely is with 3 pilots up front. The 3rd pilot can be a trainee or even an engineer in some cases, BUT to save costs there is no reason why the 3rd pilot can't assist in preparing the cabin for departure (Or an emergency) if the cabin staff need some extra help. That way the authorities might allow one less cabin crew member.
The air marshall idea was not too good and the FAA has got some real concerns over the quality of the personnel involved (Too many positive drugs tests I think).
The idea of allowing a cabin crew member up front is nuts, as you are far more likely to have one cause a problem than a pilot and it is a classic case of swapping one problem for another.
The only solution is to isolate the flight deck, BUT that is going to cost money as it requires a serious modification of the forward WC or galley area, to allow the pilots direct entry through a small narrow door from the flight deck. Obviously one of the cabin staff can check the WC is empty before the pilot locks the normal door by remote.
So the mod would require a narrow lowish extra security door directly into the forward WC, a modified WC unit (Might be slightly bigger or have a fold down sink) and a remote control external door.
The FAA, CAA et al do know what has to be done, but because the bean counters are calling the shots, there is no hope of them doing anything like insisting on a 3rd pilot or modifying the forward WC and door systems.
I suppose the insurance industry might take action and give a discount to any airline that fits a double door system with a 3rd pilot, as that might motivate the bean counters to approve it, rather than doing what some of them are doing at present and making sure the agreed value hull insurance policy is more than the value of the airliner, or figuring out how they can dump the company stock their "Friends" own before the price plummets if one of their aircraft is lost!
PS: The 3rd pilot idea will help improve the training of new pilots, as that does need to be improved. It wiil also give some airlines the chance to weed out any odd ball cases, like one chap I remember who was causing his rich parents a lot of trouble and when they asked if there was anything they could do to get him off the coke and out of town, he said yes, pay for my flight training cos I just love a nice uniform!
PPS: There should be a law passed that allows any pilot with training debts to hand back their license and leave, BUT the airline concerned should then have to pay off their training bond to allow them to find a more suitable job.
History always repeats itself and although the bean counters and politicians they fund might think financial slavery is a good idea, I don't and lot of other safety orientated chaps don't think it is either.
