>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> we will begin with the malaysian airliner and the

search continues for flight 370, a boeing 777. it has captured the attention of the world. the "new york times" said the plane experienced changes in altitude. cnn reported analysis indicated it might have crashed into the indian ocean. the u.s. is an aircraft to check the bay of bengal. joining me is colonel stephen ganyard, a contributor to abc news. and is a pilot. i am pleased to have him on this program. welcome. let me get with this question. where are we when we have this conversation at about 7:00 p.m. new york time? >> i am glad you put in the hour in there because it is amazing. the story is changing by the hour. i'll change my personal opinion about the possibilities. this new york times story that came out was interesting because it said there were radical altitude changes as it proceeded through the strait of malacca.

it would lead to one additional scenario. there are others the same it is just skin paint, a reflection of the radar energy with no transponder data associated that it is not reliable. and it was probably straight and level and these are anomalies. if the aircraft was straight and level and no out to two changes, i would favor a different scenario. what we do know is given the evidence that involved today is the airplane was under the control of somebody whether pilots or somebody in the cabin. it flew 90 degrees from the original flight path and it looks certain at this point that it is somewhere in the bottom of the indian ocean. >> the assumption that the person was flying rapidly turned off of the trans-unders just transponders that was sending information -- transponders that

were sending information about the airplane? >> it went toward beijing. into the flight, the transponder was turned off. it would not give the data altitude, after that, 17 minutes later, a system called acars and is a health management system that reports on how the airplane is feeling and how it is doing. and reports it back to the main people. that was turned off as well. little did whoever know who turned up the boxes, this acars system continues to ping, saying i am here if you want to talk to me on a regular basis. that is what has given us this

additional data today that -- on is the aircraft at the 49 minute mark or shortly thereafter made a 90 degree turn to the west and out over the peninsula off of the strait of malacca unlikely after that, southward into the indian ocean. >> and what to do they know in terms of how long the flight continued? was it four hours? >> iv the evidence is pretty solid it was on for another -- i think the evidence is pretty solid it was on for another four or five hours. it flies north for almost an hour and everything is normal and a middle of the night flight the crew says in the night to the air traffic controllers as they are heading off to vietnamese. and at that point, it changes. they go west for another hour. it continues to ping the satellites. you think how far it could fly, at least 2000 miles. >> no information other than the

pings about before our flight? >> here is what has happened. the reason we think it went to the strait of malacca is there is a military radar that is different from air traffic control radar at an airfield called butterfield. it is sort of looking up at the strait of malacca. it attracted the airplane out about the edge of the capability, the physics on the radar do not last much past 200 miles. it tracked it out of there. "the new york times" is reporting there were massive altitude changes, which is hard to believe. from the scenario point of view, my personal opinion is if you look at an airplane that is going up and down like that i think that was probably somebody who knew something about how to fly it who turned up the transponder and we look at the wild altitude changes, that is somebody who does not know how

to control it and does not understand what you are doing. on the other hand, if it was straight and level and continued over the strait of a lot of that went to the indian ocean, it would suggest it was a pilot or 2 pilots who had control. for some unknown reason, were flying into oblivion. >> do the american investigators believe they have all of the information the malaysians have? >> the short answer is, no. it has been a frustrating week for the united states because the malaysians have held the ntsb and faa at arms length and not brought them into the investigation. for what ever reason, they are trying to protect the military radar and probably discontinuities between the different agencies within the

malaysian government and they have not handled it well. yesterday and today, we probably have the ntsb and as a a -- faa almost as full partners. it is getting better but not where it needs to be. we do have the ntsb involved so the professional level of investigating will be where it needs to be. what do you believe the change in altitude took place? >> i believe it probably did. i would say -- probably no change. there is a difference between civilian and military radars. remember military radars are there to protect a nation against enemy attack. they cannot rely on the transponder of the enemy saying i am here. the military radar can look in

three dimensions is actually tell altitude. the military radar is the one giving us the altitude data. even though it was as if the limit, the fact we are seeing huge changes and maybe not that huge, but significant altitude and that was significant that the people flying do not know how to do it at work is oriented at night. >> will be due to a plane that goes to 45,000? >> it will not climb anymore. you could have the throttles up. it's not gave to get up that high. it was not designed to do that. it was heavy. it is not going to stay up there for very long. you may of heard some theories about how the whole cabinet could have been put to sleep. how might that work? somebody takes it up to 40,000 feet and there's a switch that is pressurized where you can flip it and immediately dump the pressurization.

if you did that at 43,000 feet, you would have 10 or 15 seconds of usable conciousness is backing it immediately, that cut in half. you may have 5-10 seconds of consciousness. the pilots have oxygen masks as a rich backpack and pulled him over their face. there are all sorts of ways to do about it. batteries. we cannot rule them out. today, we are getting evidence that is narrowing it down. >> how long would you believe it would take to find the wreckage is in fact they are in the broad area that is now suspected the plane might have crashed? >> i am going to go out and say right now if they went south into the indian ocean, we may never find it. i will tell you why. if remember the air france crash.

we found debris five days after the mishap and human remains. we do not get in the wreckage on the bottom of the ocean and black boxes for two years. we knew it was floating in a had to be somewhere just down underneath but it took two years and 4 dedicated expeditions. now we do not have the wreckage. >> that was a distance of about 200 miles. >> it was. the indian ocean, 10,000 feet. >> the same scenario? >> same scenario. indian ocean is very rough. it's is hard to get planes and ships out there because it is so remote. it's not like the gulf of thailand which would have been much easier which is more

and the water is warmer. that is a tough, tough nut. >> i assume you do not buy it to land in a remote location? >> no, i wish. i wish with everybody. you feel for the families. there is nothing to suggest they might have. hopefully, let's not ever rule anything out. it is not likely. >> steve, thank you so much. >> thank you. ♪ >> dr. brahimi is here to talk about syria and the possibilities to end of the civil war. it has been more than three years since the outbreak. the united nations has called it the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. more than 9 million people have been forced further homes.

two u.n. brokered talks have failed to produce agreements. dr. brahimi chaired the talks. he is the u.n. special envoy. i am pleased to have him back. welcome. >> thank you very much. >> i will read what you said. i thought he clearly feels a commitment to these people. you said, "i am very, very sorry. and i apologize to the syrian people. that on these two rounds, will not help them very much." help us understand who is at fault and what is the problem? with so many lives at stake, it is so difficult to bring the parties to gather and some kind

of understanding. >> in this situation, you always have naturally people who think they are in this war because they are going to win. for a long time, they are not ready to compromise. and what happens is, at the beginning, both sides think they are going to win. and then maybe have one side who starts to understand that perhaps winning is not in the cards for the immediately while the other side thinks they are winning. what is happening now, the government thinks they are going to win and soon. oh, yes. they are making progress. they are pushing in many places especially around damascus and they think they will win soon.

they are not really in the business of making concessions. this is what we were facing in geneva in the meetings. the other thing is, i told what we call the initiating a phase, russians and americans who called for the negotiations last year, i told them that the two parties are not really ready for compromise. we are going to bring them in and start. the likelihood of us getting anywhere is limited, but, the syrian people were extremely hopeful because this is as you said. it has cost them so much.

it is costing them everyday so much. it was a huge expectation. that is why i went out after the failure of the second round of talks and said, i apologize to the syrian people. we have let them down. >> was it a mistake to have the talks? >> no, it was not a mistake. at the end of the day, we let the syrian people down. and that is what i have said. i believe the security council and the general assembly and i said, once again, these talks have not gotten anywhere and probably not ready to get anywhere anytime soon. >> when he thinks he is going to win, president assad, how would he define winning? >> for him winning is, i think

he said once, the proof that it is almost three years and they have not defeated us. yes, he said that. well, he said again more recently. and there are now having negotiations or talks with people whom they had surrounded all around damascus and they think they are making cease-fires for them. we think this is very fragile and you know, you are going to win today tomorrow will change. we think there are solutions to end the war. as you know, the opposition who thought they were going to win.

we told them this was not the case. they were not going to win. we are telling the government and they are not going to win. there's a new factor now. and that is that, a term of president assad is coming to an end, there are noises out of damascus. they want organized elections. if they organize the elections, of course president assad will run and he will win. and most probably, the opposition will see no incentive in talking. we are really very, very difficult situation. >> what concessions are you asking of the rebels? >> i do not think i am asking concessions from them, but what i am telling them is that what is needed is a compromise. what is needed is peace where

there is national conciliation between the sides and a process of reconciliation and making peace between all of the people who are fighting one another. isolating the very, very bad guys. there are plenty of them. the terrorists, the jihadists, who have no time neither for the government or the opposition. you need to bring -- those are really concerned for syria. you know, rebuild the country. what i call the new syria. not going to go back to the syria, the father of the president or the syria of the present.

it has to be a new syria. >> can assad be a part of the new syria? >> he definitely can be part of the building of other new syria. whether he will be its president is a different story. the opposition is absolutely certain that he cannot be part of the new setup. >> where would he be if he did not have the support of iran and hezbollah? >> and lots of people say, he owes his successes to the support from outside. definitely, this is making some kind of difference. i think it is not fair to say he

would have been swept away without the support. he has an army. not enough to have the army collapsed. and he has as you said, quite a little bit of popular support. >> if in fact the rebels had gotten more support, they got support from turkey and saudi arabia. >> the west. >> support, they got a lot of support, would there have been different circumstances?

>> i suppose. the fact the opposition has been divided has weakened them. and has probably also been a reason why a lot of people have supported the president or have gone back to supporting the president. definitely, if they were united, it would've made a difference. >> he is probably helped by the fact that some of the worst acts of some the worst layers on the opposition side helped him. >> very much so. the opposition will tell you, they are not part. terrorism was not there at the beginning. terrorism has come in because of oppression and the conflict has gone on for a long time. it's probably would not have had terrorism at all. as i told you a moment ago, terrorism is certainly a very serious problem.

a lot of organizations for syria and potential for the region. we are a little bit like we were in afghanistan after the end of the 1990's. if you remember when i told the security council, you are neglecting afghanistan because it is a poor country to faraway country among be careful. one day it will blow in our faces. in a way, a similar situation. terrorist organization and jihadists. >> they are coming in and getting training a going back. >> and places like europe. that is a few apparently from the united states. and americans coming back. >> can't you do anything about it? >> i can't.

>> i'm in the opposition. >> they are fighting. >> with each other? >> yes, with each other. it is very complicated. with the government fighting terrorists and the opposition. and the opposition fighting the government and the terrorists. >> in the meantime, they're destroying a country. >> absolutely. >> what can the security council do? what is possible that is not being done? >> once the security council speaks in one voice and i think if the security council were speaking in one voice, we could go back with more precise suggestions supported by a united security council.

we are not their unfortunately. other issues are coming in. crimea. >> where do you think the russians are on this? what do they want? >> what has happened for some time is a day and the americans were talking seriously about syria. lavrov and kerry talked quite a bit about syria. and removing and the right direction. i do not know if they will continue. -- and moving in the right direction. >> a former ambassador said, he said this in december 2013. "it is time to consider a future for saudi arabia without assad's ouster. it is unlikely that is what the future will be." >> what i think and i do not -- what i say is that horrible

situation that has to stop. as i told him, you need the chance. i sat at this table when arab spring started. and all of our region, change is needed and to the president leaders can lead that change. this is true for syria. i think it is time for president assad to play a major role in a leading this change.

what will be the end if we are really and genuinely engaged and -- in responding to what the people aspire to whether assad will be a part of it or not is too early. >> is it less likely to be a civil war that spills into lebanon or jordan? >> it is there. i told the general assembly today, these conflicts cannot be bottled up in one country forever. it starts at one country and destroying one country, it is affecting other countries and in many ways. lebanon, one million refugees from syria. that is one portion of the population. they cannot bear that for very long. it will affect lebanon, jordan, iraq. is affecting iraq. somebody told me about these terrorist organizations calling itself the islamic state of iraq. it is doing 10 times more

operations in iraq than syria. you know, jordan is understandably extremely -- so it's turkey and lebanon. >> you see the threat because the refugees are destabilizing? >> in addition to that, you're the usual. drugs, terrorists, also criminal organizations. all of that comes with these types of situations. who said that -- yeah, a u.n. outfit in beirut and led by a

former deputy prime minister are saying that by 2015, if things continue the way they are, serious with to become a failed state. you know what failed states have produced. terrorism and the disorder. not only in the country but all over the place. >> and a safe haven? >> lebanon -- you had people, all kinds of organizations all the way to japan. >> you will go to iran as the president rouhani? >> yeah, sure. i am deathly seeing the foreign -- i am definitely going to see the foreign minister and i hope the president. we have talked to them. you have very good relations with the government into syria. it is great.

you should encourage them to talk to the people. that is what the iranians said. a peaceful negotiated settlement. and you know, when one side is doing well, it does not really mean the other side will not win. >> these forces -- >> they said they are not. they have advisors only. others say there are lots of iranians with hezbollah and iraqis. i do not know myself.

>> if assad leaves for whatever reason, nobody knows. >> that is why you cannot leave it to chance. the regime that exists for the moment was built by the father of the current president. they -- the keystone. -- you do not want to take the keystone before you made arrangements. you have to make sure it you need to make sure that institutions are there. and that in the country moves -- orderly manner as possible to a new syria. >> why do you do this?

>> when the secretary-general called me, my first answer was, no. when he insisted and you tell yourself you have no right to say no. and it's actually, somebody, it is difficult. failure is more likely. it is much better as an old man fails than a young man. this is, you know -- stop one day and leave it to a young man to finish. >> what you hope for is people will get tired of killing? >> the ordinary people are already tired. they hope for justin and 2 -- just an end to this tragedy. the people fighting, some are tired.

i am sure the people in the army and many of the fighters on the other side are tired i would like to have a compromise. but, certainly, the leadership of both sides is not tired yet. >> has the president of syria lived up to his obligations of eliminating the chemical weapons? >> i have seen a woman who is in charge of -- she is satisfied that she thinks they are moving into the right direction. there were delays, but they are going to catch up and things will be all right. >> thank you for coming. ♪

>> verne lundquist is here. one of the most accomplished sports broadcasters. this year's his 50th year.

he is shaking his head. he has narrated some the most historic moments. >> there is the pass. put it up. scores! >> here it comes. oh, my goodness. oh, wow! let's go! score! oh, no! >> in 1986, he commentated as jack nicklaus became the oldest player to win a major tournament. >> this is for sole possession of the lead. maybe -- yes, sir. >> at 73, he continues his

craft. he will serve as a byplay -- play-by-play announcer for march madness. i am pleased to have verne lundquist back at the table. the table for the first time. this table. >> i understand, we had this conversation 25 years ago. thank you, charlie. >> it has been one hell of a run? >> extraordinary. i have been so privileged so many times to be in the moment like the jack. the championship at the age of 46. i look back at it with some emotion and realize what a privilege it has been. >> if you say to somebody, why cover sports and why is it a great life, what would you say? >> you can let your imagination roam a bit.

i started at president johnson's television station and i was there for three years. i said i am not devoting myself to something serious. i took a job in san antonio, the nbc affiliate. i anchored the news. i realized i missed the frivolity of the sports back then and the absence of parameters. i felt i had a little more freedom to express myself as a sportscaster. i was lucky enough and on the third try after being turned down twice, i got the job in dallas, wfaa that launched every day. >> you love jim mckay. somebody asked me, what do you think mckay was so perfect and perfect and the late peter jennings.

because he was a play-by-play man. he understood moment by moment. >> interesting. >> he did a heck of a job. >> it was the best job -- i think al michaels was terrific. we are not just talking jocks and socks. jim exemplified the best that could be done in sports broadcasters/newsman. i get emotional when i remember the night he reported for duty with this one trunks -- his swim trunks on.

anybody remember him saying, they are all gone. >> is hard to say it. you remember what happened. that is part of the gift to be able as you said, yes, sir. to be able to distinctively know the right thing at the right moment and succinctly and eloquently as you can. >> i think so. obviously, i've seen that clip a couple of times. on the 20th anniversary of jack's wonderful victory, i have a friend who is a close friend of jack and asked if you have any memorabilia of that moment? i said, no.

he said get a photo and i will give it to jack's office have him sign it. i went online and bought it and send it to his office in florida. a month of back, i got it back. he said to verne, yes, sir!!! with a happy face. your friend, jack. i have seen that so much. i am asked about it a lot. what makes this seem so memorable? i said maybe, i explained yes, sir. he pumped his arms and synchronization with me saying yes, sir. it is in an exclamation point. >> the golden rule for you is not to get in the way of the game. >> we have been doing some media in new york and i have heard bill say to a reporter, i do not think we get in the way of the game. it is the most important to us. be a minimalist. use language as best you can, but kind of stay back.

it is a philosophy. i worked with jim mckay as a sideline reporter. people do not understand how important writing is in sports broadcasting. you say, well, i think ability to write well induces you to speak well. >> in my business, too. writing is where you touch it in a way that people will remember. in the pictures, it speaks for itself, the notion of you have to be a journalist. yes, you love the fans. yes, you are there to make sure you underline and put the right moment to ask the right question that defines substance of the truth of the game.

>> to me, there's an interesting paradox of what we do. the analyst who is sitting next to me. my responsibilities. we are storytellers. we are analyst. we give insight into what is happening in front of us. the bottom line is, you have a journalistic responsibility as well. it is not perfect. no. we all know that. we are reminded of it daily. i sometimes choke on two words, student athlete. that's a sad side of all the amateur sports and professional as of this kind of difficult to draw the line. there's a lot that is wrong with it. i do not want to be unfair. on saturday afternoons at the scc with our college football

telecast, there is a passion telecast, there is a passion that exists there that i do not think it be equal anywhere in the world. i grew up in texas. but sometimes, that passion gets misplaced. and you tend to -- and the ncaa said we should refer to them in that manner. sometimes i swallow real hard. >> and you're there, auburn/alabama. >> no return by chris davis. davis goes left. a running block. no flags. touchdown! auburn! >> tell me about that.

>> i think this is generational thing. i've been so privileged to be present at significant events. i've always said that jack nicklaus and the victory in 1986 was my favorite because it was jack and the greatest sporting event i ever thought. >> and he was 46? >> it was important to me. i always thought that i had of the tiger woods chip. >> the other initially thing about sports is what it means to a society. while it is a game, look at the olympics and putin and how he thought it was central to the coming back of russia as he saw it. look at what it means to a community. sports has an undefinable sense

of capturing what brings a community together. look what happens to new york city. >> look what happened to the city of dallas and the dallas cowboys. because for years, dallas was the sea of shape because president kennedy was assassinated. the climate was ugly. i believe to your point that the rise of the cowboys in the late 1960's and establishment as america's team in the 1970's helped revive perception of dallas as a city. sports offer a very, very important part of our civilization. >> you loved the nfl. and then president of cbs said is not in the nfl we want you to do.

>> nope. have you heard of the scc? he was at nbc and had been there for 25 years. bought the nfl. he is a dear friend of mine. he said, just a heads up, he does not like doing football. [laughter] i said that will not affect me. i kept hearing these rumors. and i said, we left about this just yesterday. sean and i. i called him and he called me back. i said, really? he said, well, i have a responsibility if he makes himself available. it is a hall of fame broadcaster. i do not think it will happen anyway. in the unlikely event we sign, how would you feel about doing

the southeastern conference football package? i hung up the phone and said nance, pack up. what would spend a lot of time. it turned to be a -- [indiscernible] >> is it the greatest game you ever saw? >> i get sidetracked. i was asked after the game where does it rank? i said like on rote, second two jack nicklaus. i read mike online at he had a column that sunday listed the eight reasons why alabama/auburn was the greatest finish in sports. i thought i might want to revise.

>> and you agree with him, the greatest finish in sports that you know? you have to give a lot of thought. but i would. the greatest -- my partner gary, he sent me an e-mail. about four days after that. he said, so, you have done duke/kentucky and now auburn/alabama. you did tiger. what is next for you? [laughter] >> talk about tonya for a moment. never more hype. 50%.

>> 48%. connie chung anchoring below us. dan rather was there. i watched both 30/30 on espn and the nbc report which i thought was really well done. mary had access to tonya and nancy. nancy has never spoken about it. >> did she get married to a sportscaster? >> she married her agent. i saw nancy at an event in charlotte a year ago in november. she is skating some. she is a mom now. she is -- you know, it was awful for her. just awful. i guess tonya is not having an easy life. i understand that. >> i love golf. the masters.

you have a favorite tournament. >> this will be number 30 for that as well. >> units in all of the great one -- you have seen all of the great ones. >> i have never seen hogan play. >> i never went to colonial to see if i can say hello to ben hogan and get him on my show. i have a reasonably good record. [laughter] >> yeah, you do. >> i would've had a shot. what is the great moments -- >> i did all of our golf regularly for 12-15 years. we called our producer the ayatollah. one saturday, he said, ok boys, saddle up. we are having lunch with ben

and valerie hogan. think about that. if you love the sport and here was mr. hogan. not the most easily accessible than -- man, but to no got to sit with ben and valerie for an hour was special. >> i went to do an hour with barney was up when i such a great time. he said let's play together. i said i will let you know. i want to make sure my game is as good as it can be. >> i had a friend who was a guest of mine at augusta but we were driving. we had golf carts.

they do not want him on the course, but we had them to get around. one came in the opposite direction and we bumped into each other. arnold palmer said hi, verne. he got out of the cart with his second wife. i turned to my buddy is it that is arnold palmer and he said really? >> what is the difference between those athletes that are good in the booth and those who are not good in the booth? >> well, i say this with parenthesis, understanding of the english language helps. [laughter] and i am not cringe proof. sometimes i will sit and watch the athletes try to transfer into the booth. it's a wonderful life. it really is. i think the best guys, not a conclusive statement, the best guys have a genuine is about

them. >> have to do with an instinctive personality? >> absolutely. the ability to articulate is helpful. i think most important is a genuine person sitting there. something about these cameras that was learned over the years, somehow reaches in and grabs the person. it is been my experience that people i've met in this space over the years how you perceive them through television. 85% the time will be true to who they are. if it makes any sense. >> pleasure for me. >> verne lundquist, a sportscaster. ♪

>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we cover innovation, technology, and the future of business. i'm emily chang. chinese tech ipos are in the spotlight. the twitter of china has filed to go public where alibaba said it is going to start the process in the united states. apple makes a big bet on college sports. a check of your top tech headlines.