flight 370 the bluefin-21 has nearly completed the scanning of the entire search zone. is in the last chance of hope for the families of flight 370? they are fighting for answers and information from the malaysian prime minister. and our own richard quest sits down with him in an exclusive interview. you don't want to miss that. could this have been prevented? is it time for a change in technology. live streaming information from the cockpit, is that enough? what about cameras in the cockpit? it seems logical but you would be surprised how many are against that idea even in the aftermath of flight 370. you have been tweeting your

questions and we have top aviation and security experts standing by to answer them for you. why so much secrecy about this accident? what are they hiding? >> i want to begin with michael holmes in perth. bring us up to date. have they covered the entire search area at this point? >> don, good to see you. pretty much. 95% now officially covered. that's after mission 12 by bluefin-21. like the previous missions no sign of mh-370. mission 13 is underway as we speak. once it completes its search of that focused area, then they have not found anything in what to them was the most promising area, ten kilometers, six-mile radius around that strongest

acoustic signal. as we reported, this was the best guess area for the searchers. there was an air of confidence around it. coming up with a blank will obviously be disappointing but everyone from the search leaders to the prime minister to leaders say it will continue. clearly other areas will have to come in to play. >> thank you very much. our own richard quest sat down for an interview with the prime minister of malaysia to everything from the government's handling of the investigation to the families of flight 370. richard quest is joining us now. it is a fascinating interview. we will break down your interview with the prime minister. starting with the most critical question, why did they fail to track down the plane when it first disappeared? >> don, one of the most interesting parts of talking to the prime minister today was because of the program that you and i and the panel have been doing for the last six, seven weeks.

because unlike anywhere else in many ways we have really thrashed these issues out. so, when i sat down with the malaysian prime minister, i'm remembering what you and i have talked about so many times. i really needed to know when the transponder was switched off. when the acars stopped, been disabled, when the left turn happened, what did malaysia's military see? >> now, the military radar, the radar has some capability. it tracked an aircraft which did a turn back. but they were not sure whether it was mh-370. what they were sure of was that the aircraft was not deem to be hostile. >> no planes were sent up on the night to investigate.

>> no. because simply -- simply because it was deemed not to be hostile. >> don't you find that troubling that a civil aircraft can turn back, fly across the country and nobody thinks to go up and have a look? because one of two thing. i understand the threat level. either the plane is in trouble and needs help or it is nefarious and you aren't want to know what somebody is going up there to do. don't you find that troubling? >> see, coming back to my earlier statement they were not sure whether it was mh-370. >> even more reason to have a look. >> they were not sure but it behaved like a commercial airline. >> moving to the inmarsat data is brought to your attention.

did you have any doubts when inmarsat and your advisers said we believe the plane flew for six and a half, everyone hours or so and this is where it went. you must have had a shocked reaction. >> to be honest i found it hard to believe to begin. how could a plane that was i supposed to be heading towards beijing, you know -- they could decide the plane ended half way -- it is a bizarre scenario which none of us could have contemplated. that's why when i met the team, mind you these are experts in the aviation industry, they are the real expert s as you know, they come from the united states, from u.k. they were there. i asked them, are you sure? i asked them again and again, are you sure?

and their answer to me was, we are as sure as we can possibly be. >> are you prepared now to say the plane and its passengers have been lost? on the balance of the evidence, it would be hard to imagine otherwise, richard. >> the significance is until malaysia says the plane has been lost, the compensation packages, the next stage of proceedings can't go ahead. so i ask you again, prime minister that the plane and its passengers are lost? >> at some point in time i would be. but -- right now i think i need to take in to the accounts of the feelings of the next of kin. as some of them have said publicly they are not willing to accept until they find hard

evidence. >> so richard, the prime minister does not want to come out and say the plane is lost now out of respect for, he says the families. do they still believe it's -- what they initially said it is in the southern indian ocean? >> oh, yes. there's no question the pm believes that. he has very high confidence in the inmarsat data and the pings from the "ocean shield." he makes clear, don, that if that evidence should prove to be inaccurate, well, not to put a finer point on it, it's all they have got. >> yeah, it is. richard, standby. fascinating interview. i want to bring in my team of experts to talk about this. mary schavio, the inspector, former inspector general of the department of transportation, now an aviation attorney for

victims of transportation accidents. lieutenant colonel michael kay, retired military pilot with the british royal air force, jim tilmon, retired american airlines pilot. les abend, aviation analyst and triple seven pilot and aviation attorney arthur rosenberg and geoffrey thomas editor in chief of airlineratings.com. let's go to geoffrey first. what did you make of the interview? did the prime minister have a good explanation of how they acted in the immediate after math of the disappearance? >> first of all, great interview that richard was able to get. the malaysian prime minister has given us more clarity but it's not crystal clear. some of the answers were still left question marks. as far as the way they reacted afterwards he did concede they didn't handle it as well as they could but at the same time he does say, which is true, this disappearance is unprecedented

and many, many countries would have been challenged by it. certainly we have more clarity from them about what is going to happen in the next week or so. >> one of the most important pieces of the interview, i thought, is the prime minister saying that military radar tracked an aircraft. they weren't sure that it was flight 370 but it wasn't deemed to be hostile. what do you make of the prime minister's explanation of why they didn't scramble jets, mikey. >> i thought richard's questions were spot on but i think that the prime minister was economical with the truth. he had to two options. he could declare he didn't see anything, or military radar didn't see anything on the scopes or he could see he did say something or the military radar did see something and didn't act upon it or deemed it not hostile which is a dangerous move in the post 9/11 order. the aircraft wasn't squawking. it wasn't flight planned. it wasn't part of routine airways traffic.

there were a lot of reasons why his air defense fighters, his fa-18s, f-5s should have gone airborne to look at that. the important thing is it is not just the case of an unidentified blip and launch some fighters. there's a plethora of emergency procedures that area radar controllers can take before that point. like getting in touch with the aircraft and so on the on and so forth. it's a dangerous move not to have interrogated this in some way. >> mary, i want your reaction to this as an investigator and former inspector general for the department of transportation. we would call it hedging, the prime minister at least is reluctant to acknowledge the flight 370 is lost. >> i'd call it swiss cheese. there are so many holes in that story and here's why. he said it was behaving like a commercial aircraft. really? does a commercial aircraft make an abrupt turn around?

this is what the malaysians said. most of us don't buy all of. this would it climb to 39,000 feet, descend to 5,000 feet and go back to 4,000 feet and out and around the indonesian islands and fail to communicate? nothing about that statement makes any sense. the aircraft, according to the malaysians, the aircraft certainly did not behave like a commercial jetliner. anything but. so if it did behave like a commercial jetliner time to revise the story. >> very well put. swiss cheese. thank you for that, mary. are there legal reasons he would avoid saying that directly. >> he has to say the plane is lost in order to trigger remedy provisions under the month call convention. i think we should be upbeat about the prime minister's interview with richard. most notably on the inmarsat data. the prime minister has access to

more information than we do. and he expressed belief and confidence in the data he was given. i say he gets high marks. i think we have renewed confidence and i think we should take that away from the interview. >> standby. when we come back, how does the malaysian prime minister feel about his government's handle for the search of flight 370. his thoughts are next. this is mike. his long race day starts with back pain... ...and a choice. take 4 advil in a day which is 2 aleve... ...for all day relief. "start your engines" [ dog barks ] ♪ [ male announcer ] imagine the cars we drive... being able to see so clearly... to respond so intelligently and so quickly, they can help protect us from a world of unseen danger.

it's the stuff of science fiction... minus the fiction. and it is mercedes-benz... today. see your authorized dealer for exceptional offers through mercedes-benz financial services. you're an emailing, texting, master of the digital universe. but do you protect yourself? ♪ apparently not. when you access everything, you give everyone access to everything about you. but that's ok. while you do your thing... [ alert rings ] we'll be here at lifelock, doing our thing. watching out for things your credit card alone can't. [ alert rings ] and relentlessly protecting your identity. get lifelock protection and live life free. [ alert rings ]

welcome back. i'm here with richard quest who sat down for an exclusive interview with the malaysian prime minister. they have been criticized for not releasing it. you spoke to the prime minister

about this and their investigation. tell us about it. >> the preliminary report, it was actually me that asked at the press conference yesterday if the preliminary report had been sent to icao, the u.n. body and it had been sent and i was told they were deciding whether to release it to the media. then i was -- a source told me there was actually a safety recommendation within it. that icao should look at the benefits of realtime plane tracking. so frankly, the fact that -- don, the fact they had written a report, hadn't told anyone about it, weren't about to release it. to my eyes, it was a very good example of the lack of transparency that people on this panel have been talking about. so quite simply to the prime minister, are you going to release the report?

how do you justify the allegations of lack of transparency? >> the country has had a real kicking over the perspective and perception of the way it handled the early days. i think the phrase used in many cases is malaysia bungled it. >> i have to be quite frank with you. first of all, start from the premise that it was unprecedented. we all agree it was unprecedented. it was the most technically challenging, most complex issue that malaysia or any country for that matter and i believe even an advanced country would have great difficulty handling such an issue. some of the things we did well. we were very focused on searching for the plane. we didn't get our communications right, absolutely right to begin with, but i think towards the

later part we have our act together. so i'm prepared to say there are things we did well. there are things we didn't do too well, but we prepared to look in to it and this investigation team to do its objective assessment. >> in the last 24 hours we have had a good example of what the critics say. the preliminary report. not only did malaysia not announce that it submitted the preliminary report, it's still deciding whether or not to tell us we had it and to release it. even though it has a safety recommendation within it. i've covered enough air crashes to know that almost always this is the preliminary report published. what we have here, mr. p.m. prime minister, is an investigation or minister who speaks the language of transparency, but the

practicality are seeming to do the opposite. >> i hear the voices out there, richard. i have directed an investigation, internal investigation team of experts to look at the report. there's a likelihood that next week we could release the report. >> why not release it now, prime minister? is there something in it that is embarrassing to malaysia? >> i don't think so. but i want the team to go through it. but in the name of transparency, we will release the report next week. >> you will? >> we will release the report next week. >> he said they will release the report next week some besides the safety do you know what more might be in it. >> not in great detail. preliminary reports are fairly basic stuff. i'm much more interested --

because other courses have told me that now that this process has begun they will look at releasing things such as the cargo manifest, the updated passenger list, maps and things like that. the prime minister said i hear the voices. i think that's the most important part here. i don't think there's much there that has to be hidden. i don't think they have done much wrong with anything at all. i think we are talking about an operational appeal where they have not given confidence in what they are doing. >> thank you very much. back to the panel and my experts. jeff wise, do you expect the report to reveal much of anything given how little evidence we have. >> on the one hand, preliminary reports are usually short and brief documents that just lay out the basic facts of the case. however, it was stunning to hear this exchange between the prime

minister and richard where he was talking about, you know, creating a panel was going to review this document, which itself had already been created by a panel of malaysian experts. that was baffling. to have this remarkable moment where richard seems to have strong armed the prime minister in to saying okay i will release it. what is in this report that makes them so hesitant to release it? it is pretty baffling. >> geoffrey thomas, are the malaysians finally attempting to be more transparent? i wonder if they are not used to media challenging authority and maybe that's behind some of the lack of transparency. >> look, indeed, don. i think the media interest which reflects the global interest, of course, in this extraordinary case has overwhelmed the malaysians.

but with relationship to this report, this is being put together with the help of the ntsb, the atsb from australia, the aib from united kingdom. i think the french and chinese involved. there's a lot of parties to this preliminary report. you know, it's already being put together by a team of experts. of course i will the prime minister has another team just to overlook what has been done. i think this report will be a really good thing. it's going to clear the air on a lot of fiction which has become fact. with can go back to square one and say now we know what happened with this airplane to these various points. that will be a really welcome thing for the coverage of this disappearance. >> jim tilmon, i wonder when we get this report if it will be like some court documents that are released that there are so many redactions you can't read the report. why wait to release it until

next week? >> for the same reason they have done a lot of other things that don't make any sense. the fact is there isn't anything in that report, can't be anything that is that startling. we have been startled enough already. not going to wake up anybody or lose sleep. it is silly they haven't done it and harmful to them, their story, their image and to those families. >> so, richard asked the prime minister about the prime minister about their deteriorating relationship with the families. let's listen and then we will talk. >> prime minister, the next of kin continue to ask questions and they believe they are not getting the answers. they believe that various technical facts are not being given to them. can you tonight reassure them that they are given the information and if they believe they are not that you personally will make sure that they will?

>> i know this is a very, very excruciatingly painful time for them. i understand that. we have done our best. we did many, many briefings. we gave them as much information as we could in terms of information that were corroborated. i promise next week we will release the preliminary report that we sent to icao, but the most important information that they want and sadly the one that we cannot provide is where is the plane. >> so, arthur rosenberg is an attorney. i want to ask you this. what we have heard from ivan watson. this is one of the reporters in the region there. do you think the malaysian government will give in to the

demands of the families and get the answers to their 26 questions? >> i think they do. i think a large reason why they haven't been as candid as they should be, i think for two reasons. they are not used to being challenged. the officials are not used to being challenged. i think they are unsophisticated with this. you heard the language from the prime minister. this was unprecedented. i think this was from a technical standpoint overwhelming for the officials to deal. i think the fact they are not used to being challenged carried over in to creating an opaque relationship in terms of transferring information to the families. ultimately i think their questions will be answered as the malaysians become more confident in the information they have. i think the communication channels will ease up and be greased. >> beside the obvious answer of finding the plane, what should the number one priority of the international team that will investigate the plane's disappearance, what should be their number one priority do you

think? >> i think we all agree finding the airplane and making the search more definitive for the families. i agree with arthur. it is an overwhelming experience. the preliminary report doesn't upset me it that wasn't released. the government wanting to dot the is and cross the ts. this is overwhelming. >> it is. >> geoffrey thomas, appreciate you. and richard quest. everyone else, please stay with us. officials recommended live streaming data from the cockpit, but is that enough? what about cameras in the cockpit? that always sparks a lively debate. it may seem like a no brainer. we will talk to a pilot that doesn't quite see it that way. that's next. marge: you know, there's a more enjoyable way to get your fiber. try phillips fiber good gummies. they're delicious, and an excellent source of fiber to help support regularity. wife: mmmm

husband: these are good! marge: the tasty side of fiber. from phillips.

malaysian officials have said a report will be made in one week. cnn learned the report proposes live streaming information from the cockpit in future flights. this will help to lessen reliance on the black box. does that go far enough? should we consider cameras in the cockpit? this always sparks a lively debate on the show when we talk about this, captain cassidy. as a result of this case, there's been renewed talk about beefing up airline security and safety. one idea, streaming cockpit data live from the flight. the ntsb has called for video cameras in cockpits. you oppose this. why is that?

>> well, i think the first thing we have to do is take a step back and acknowledge one thing. the fact of the matter is we have the safest form of transportation in the history of the world. we continue to have that right now, even with the presence of this issue with the malaysia flight. the reason for that is because we have safety-minded professionals up front flying those airplanes and we have a great system in which we currently manage available data. >> i understand that. with all due respect. we have limited time here. we can always improve safety. safety is good but we can make it better. why do you oppose cameras in the cockpit? >> because we have access to a tremendous amount of data that the cameras are not going to do much to enhance. now if we were able to bridge the technical challenges of having realtime data streamed upon thousands and thousands of aircraft there's the issue of managing the data, protecting the data and somebody has to monitor that full time and actually understand the context in which the data is provided. i don't think we are ready to go there yet.

>> you don't think there are enough people or we can find a way to improve safety and find people to monitor the streaming data if it helps improve the safety of flying? >> well, if they were able to figure out the technological challenges, i think there's other unforeseen issues with having video recordings especially streamed back to ground stations. i will give you one great example. what if somebody was able to get, somehow tap in to a streamed video from a flight crew going beyond the privacy concerns which of course we have great concerns over that. what if there was a conversation taken out of context and suddenly put up on the net and then ended up promoting a lot of hysteria, even with the passengers on board a plane that might be getting e-mails. >> captain, there are other modes of transportation, there are trains, buses, a number of modes of transportation that have streaming video and cameras. you have cameras in a number of

different places. these cameras do not have to be available to the public. it seems you are scapegoating the issue here? >> no. actually the issue has been studied before. the faa has commissioned federal advisory commission to look at the data provisions and the data handling. the last time they looked ate, they said there is currently not the safeguards in the system to handle video data appropriately and safely. the other thing that a airplane, a modern jet has in excess of 1,000 data points from the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder already recorded. you don't see from buses and ships and other vehicle we have a state of the art program that ensures the safety system. the video issue behind privacy concerns. there is great expectation of privacy in the flight deck as well. >> let's talk about privacy. everyone from 7-eleven to here in the building in the time warner, cnn center in atlanta, department store in a taxi, there are cameras in every

profession just about in the country and the world. why should pilots be different? they don't own the plane. they work for the airlines. >> they don't own the plane obviously. imagine this, if you have two pilots that are basically locked in a flight deck the size of a closet with a video camera monitoring every single thing they say it's not the same as perhaps a clerk in a store stepping away from the counter or doing something else. the other thing who's going to be monitoring the conversation and deciding whether or not something i say is appropriate or not and if they miss part of a conversation and take it out of context will that result in action or direction given to the crew? >> that's the purpose of it. you have a board. you have people to review. you have whoever's in the cockpit give their side of the story. it happens in every profession. to most people, outside of the pilot profession, they don't understand the logic behind what you are saying.

that's what happens around the world every single day. pilots seem to be the only ones who are against it. >> i think there's other professions that may take exception to having full-time video surveillance of all of the stuff they do every day. i'm positive of that. but if we are talking about realtime monitoring, i don't think that you would have the ability to get that information, analyze and review it and let's remember there's thousands upon thousands upon thousands of flights that are operating over air space right now. it's a much bigger than people are panning it as. now, if there was a way to sufficiently provide protections and sufficient safeguards and ensure this was not used as inappropriate tool of discipline then we could have a conversation down the line. none of those assurances exist right now. >> captain cassidy, thank you very much. i want to bring in my panel of experts and start with everyone's opinion on this. should cameras be required this

the cockpit? should they, yes or no, should or shouldn't they? i will start in order. jeff wise. >> no. >> mary schavio. >> yes. >> mikey kay. >> no. >> jim tilmon. >> no. >> les abend? >> no. we have had this discussion before. >> yes, we have. >> arthur rosenberg? >> absolutely yes. no question about it. >> we will get in to the reasons why after this break. we have cameras everywhere these days. why not in the cockpit? my experts will tackle that question next. i've always kept my eye on her...

but with so much health care noise, i didn't always watch out for myself. with unitedhealthcare, i get personalized information and rewards for addressing my health risks. but she's still gonna give me a heart attack. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare.

here we go, everyone. cameras in the cockpit. it raises questions of privacy, safety and money. i want to start with our pilots. jim and les. a skeptic may say what are pilots doing in the cockpit they wouldn't want people to see. les, you first. >> thank you, don. i know we had a lively discussion about this frequently. you have to -- the question is what are we doing? are we increasing safety or are we making a deterrent for pilots? in other words like a convenient store security, are we deterring the crime from committing at the 7-eleven? what are we doing in the cockpit?

are we preventing pilots from doing a nefarious act, committing suicide, reading the "wall street journal" and possibly ignoring emergency bells and whistles. what is it we are attempting to do. if it is a live streaming data situation, someone like captain cassidy has to be watching and monitoring. what can the person on the ground do if that is a live streaming data situation? i don't see where cameras are going to assist or be a deterrent in any particular way. where do you position the camera in the first place? >> jim? >> i just think -- first of all, it's a ridiculous idea. most of that starts with something that's outside of the realm of what a lot of folks are talking about. let's talk about the money only so much in the till. let's spend it on an approach that will eliminate the need for

a lot of this kind of conversation. if you are not going to do something that will impact safety and make it better and easier and even more economical for the airlines, than let's not do it at all. it's unnecessary. we don't need to have it. i can hear it now, flaps, hydraulics, makeup. that's on the checklist now. >> mary, schavio, what about the argument that jim and les are making now. they say it is a ridiculous idea. what do you think? >> it's a ridiculous idea not to have them. the privacy issue is a red herring. the federal aviation administration regulations did away with that a long time ago when they said you have to have two people in the cockpit on every commercial passenger flight. why because pilots engage in constant crew resource management. they must challenge each other all the time. if they are constantly doing themselves all the time they have no time for privacy activities, half of which require you to be naked. we know that isn't happening. there is no privacy in the cockpit.

9/11, egypt air, silk air, malaysia and air france. those five alone there are 4200 deaths. that's about the iraq war. on those five crashes, it was a mystery what the pilots were doing. when you put it down to raw, hard data that's a lot of lives lost. it is a practical issue when almost 300 accidents, commercial plane crashes are caused by pilot mistakes. makes perfect sense to cut down on them. >> les is about to jump out of his seat. go ahead. >> thank you, don. 4200 deaths is significant and the family and we don't have to get in to that. but what would you have prevented with a camera in the cockpit. all you have is an after the fact technology that will assist with the dfdr and the cockpit voice recorder after the fact. >> go ahead, quickly, mary. i want to get the other guys in? >> two elements.

an element of deterrence because in many crashes, com-air, you can rattle off dozens the pilots were busy engaging in complaints about their airline rather than watching speed deteriorate and if they were constantly monitored they wouldn't have done it. >> i disagree. >> arthur, any legal issues pro or con? >> there are always legal issues. let's talk about practical issues here. first of all, nobody wants big brother looking at them all the time. that aside. let's look at two situations. an accident sequence and security situation. for the accident sequence we have an audio stream, we have a data stream in the form of a digital flight data recorder. we have nothing to visually see what is going on in the cockpit. for example in the course of an accident sequence, a pilot's hands may hover over certain

instruments or radio devices, on the yolk, how he is gripping it. none of that is documented unless you have a video. on the security side, to understand what is going on in the cockpit in the midst -- i will give you an example. the regent jetblue situation about two years ago, the captain had a breakdown. the co-pilot was able to coax him out of the cockpit. he locked the door. the captain is running up and down screaming we're not going to las vegas. to visually see what is going on in that cockpit is important. >> hurry up. >> ed, one more thing, the issue of the live stream of the video i think is a good idea. it can be triggered along with the idea of flight monitoring if the plane deviates from the flight path. >> here's what people don't understand when it comes to pilot against cameras in the cockpit. if you work for a company they give you a cell phone. everything in the phone belongs to cnn. they can take it at anytime and uss it. everything in my e-mail belongs

to cnn. if i walk in the building if i'm late, they can use it for disciplinary actions. that's no different than any other profession. michael kay, why is it so different for pilots? the director of the show, the audio track, which the director talks to me it is recorded. >> don, cameras are not the essence of the issue. they are quicker fixes. the time, money and resource to do what you are indicating we should do. >> we're not saying that there aren't other fixes. hear me out. we're not saying there aren't other fixes. we're trying to figure out why pilots are so opposed to this particular one. >> the problem is geolocating or almost near time geolocating can be done by adsb. >> that's the essence of the problem for tracking the plane. we are talking about the actions of the pilot, not the tracking of the airplane. >> the actions of the pilot can

be derived from the fdr and cbr. we have been using the system for years and it's not really broken. it's the fact we can't find the plane is the single point of failure. we can't do that because transponders can be turned off. we can solve that problem pretty quickly. >> go ahead, jeff wise. >> listen, don, i'm sympathetic to what you are saying. we all have cameras on us all the time. you know who doesn't is ceos, the president, people who run things -- >> the president has cameras on him all the time. there is a camera in air force one. >> the people that don't get watched are running the show. the pilot of a plane up until now because of mh-370, he is the authority, the force of law in that -- he inherits the mantle of the ship's captain who could marry people and exert the force of law. when you start to put the camera on the pilot you are basically

treating him as a po ten perp like the rest of us. >> there's no camera on me in my office. there's no camera on me in the office. the cockpit is not their office but where they do their work standby. coming up our experts will answer your questions coming up next. (music) defiance is in our bones. defiance never grows old. citracal maximum. calcium citrate plus d. highly soluble, easily absorbed. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in. with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio,

we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. captain: when i'm looking for a hotel with a wet pool, i go to hotels.com. you can get up to 50% off with their private sales. that man's privates are no longer private. you're an emailing, texting, master of the digital universe.

but do you protect yourself? ♪ apparently not. when you access everything, you give everyone access to everything about you. but that's ok. while you do your thing... [ alert rings ] we'll be here at lifelock, doing our thing. watching out for things your credit card alone can't. [ alert rings ] and relentlessly protecting your identity. get lifelock protection and live life free. [ alert rings ] so i've come up with a family emergency plan. daughter: great. what is it?

mom: it's difficult to talk about. so i'm not telling you. how will we know what to do? you won't. i'm so glad i won't have to remember anything. me, too. dad: thanks for this, sweetie. announcer: talk to your kids about who to call, where to meet, what to pack. visit ready.gov/kids for tips and information.

back with my experts answering your tweet questions. first we will start with is mary. i have a question from -- i don't have it here. it is from robert. i got it earlier. robert said what happened to houston the guy headed up the mh-370 search? we haven't heard from him in a long time. >> that's right. they said he would report back when he said he had something to report. sadly i think he has had nothing to report. >> les, this is from jason. he says why would a pilot do a 170-degree turn unless the plane was in trouble. if the pilot lost his avionics what would he do? >> that's my whole mechanical scenario i have been leaning toward is that he did a diversion their tactic heading to an airport he was familiar with because of some sort of mechanical problem. if he lost his avionics he has

standby instruments to utilize. >> mary, this says it seems like the searchers are looking in the wrong place and should recheck the path of the flight. do you agree? >> i agree they should check the path of the flight but they have to finish looking where they are now. i'm suspicious about the radar reportings across malaysia and indonesia. >> why so much secrecy about the accident? what are they hiding? >> i think the malaysians were inexperienced and out of their league and will hopefully get on track going forward. >> mark, why would someone go through the trouble of evading radar to crash a plane in the southern indian ocean? >> great question. this is why it is a huge mystery and why it has been gripping the world as long as it has. who knows? it doesn't make sense. the whole thing doesn't make sense. we don't know who did it, why or what or anything. >> this is a question that says if the plane landed could it fly

again without being detected and if so how would you stop it from being used as a weapon? >> i think one of the nine principles of war is surprise. if that was the case whoever the terrorist organization is planning to use it as a weapon has lost the element of surprise because the area defenses of the sovereign territories within that part of the world would be heightened i should imagine. it can be landed. if it was landed i would be surprised that no one saw it. if it was landed it would be the government of that landed. >> do you think that is a legitimate scenario. >> most unlikely scenario but we don't have enough information to take anything off the table yet. >> this is a question on pilots' actions here. answer what is sop if the pilot feels a plane is in danger and must maneuver to escape a credible threat. jim, tell me? >> i don't know if there is an sop because i don't know what you are talking about in terms

of the threat. if the threat is in the plane that's one thing. if the threat is on the ground and somebody's got something they are threatening with -- pilots have an uncanny ability to believe they are going to fly the airplane safely no matter what. the beautiful thing about the human being is we know how to analyze data and we know how to make quick and fine decisions. >> all right. just to see how mad les abend is with me about cameras, i'm going to ask him the same question. can someone answer that? >> you want me to answer that? >> yes, sir. i want you to answer the same question. >> same question. we have a checklist to follow. if it is a mechanical situation, we follow a checklist and even a hijacking situation we have a scenario that we utilize. we always have some card in our deck that we can utilize. >> we'll be right back,

everyone. .yea dulcolax tablets can cause cramps but not phillips. it has magnesium and works more naturally than stimulant laxatives. for gentle cramp free relief of occasional constipation that works! mmm mmm live the regular life. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ gigantic, gigantic, gigantic ♪ a big, big love ♪ gigantic, gigantic, gigantic ♪ a big, big love ♪

♪

final question. reality check really. tomorrow will be seven weeks, day 49. mary schavio, what do you think? >> i think we need to get that preliminary report out and really reassess the situation. so it's a good time to see where we are and plan for where we will go next. >> seven weeks, mikey kay. >> seven weeks is 1/14 of the time it took to find the black boxes from air france 447. we are in for the long haul and just beginning. >> arthur. >> stay the course and for the future of aviation, cameras in the cockpit and streaming data of aircraft position. >> jim tilmon. >> outside of that camera in the cockpit, i can tell you we have learned a great deal out of this situation. we have learned how not to do things and how to do things we have never done before. i think aviation will benefit from this somehow. >> let's get accuracy on the

radar. >> we have learned so little in seven weeks. >> i'm don lemon, thank you for watching tonight. see you back tomorrow night. let's get real. the geneva agreement is not open to interpretation. it is not vague. it is not subjective. it is not optional. >> more tough talk aimed at moscow. while tensions on the ground in ukraine reach a dangerous phase. there are things we did wrong, things we didn't do well. >> asia's prime minister addresses the criticism over his country's response over flight 370. it is a cnn exclusive. and we're learning more about one of the