so we'll keep our eye on that. 19 n the meantime, richard quest joins me along with arthur rosenberg and jeff weise. let's talk about the search. let's talk about this oil slick. from your reporting, what are they going to be able to ascertain? let's say it tests positive for it is jet fuel there are lots of reasons jet fuel might be around. it's unclear. will they be able to tell it comes from this plane? >> first of all, the jet fuel

arthur rosenberg and jeffrey thomas editor and chief of airline ratings.com. this is the original group we assembled eight weeks ago and you are back here with us. thank you for joining us. we will start with you, jim. some families have been question wlng searchers are looking in the right place. you share their skepticism, don't you? tell me why you think they may need to go back to the drawing board, jim. >> i never got assurance there was a strong scientific reason for taking the approach we are taking. i don't know what was the thinking involved when the decision was let's go south and ignore anything to the north. i don't think the idea of ignoring any part of a search like this because we don't know very much. it's one of these things that came up last week when someone made the statement we don't know anything. we suppose a lot. we have a lot of assumptions. we need to know something. i'm with the family on that. tell me something i can count on to be real. >> one of the family members on this show raised that possibility last night. david, do the resu

we have had this discussion before. >> yes, we have. >> arthur rosenberg? >> absolutely yes.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 comm

arthur rosenberg, what do you make of this?from the get-go, i always felt there was human intervention. now they've eliminated a lot of things. the information hasn't all been released. i think also by characterizing this as a criminal investigation shrouds everything in a little bit of secrecy. it's under the umbrella of a crime, they don't have to release information. but i think criminal, intentional, it's all part and parcel of the same thing. >> the journal and the police chief says, it may affect prosecution later if investigation findings revealed now, and if you looked this morning when they released the transcript, one of the reasons they say they've delayed releasing the transcript of air traffic control is because it was a police investigation. >> we'll be right back. (dad) well, we've been thinking about it and we're just not sure. (agent) i understand. (dad) we've never sold a house before. (agent) i'll walk you guys through every step. (dad) so if we sell, do you think we can swing it? (agent) i have the numbers r

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. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ gigantic, gigantic, gigantic ♪ a big, big love ♪ gigantic, gigantic, gigantic ♪ a big, big love ♪ ♪ feeding your lawn need not be so difficult neighbors. get a load of this bad boy. whoa. this snap spreader system from scotts is snap-crackin' simple -- just snap, lock, and go. [ scott ] feed your lawn. feed it! ...and let in the dog that woke the man who drove to the control room [ woman ] driverless mode engaged. find parking space. [ woman ] parking space found. [ male announcer ] ...that secured the data that directed the turbines that powered the farm that made the milk that went to the store that reminded the man to buy the milk that was poured by the girl who loved the cat. [ meows ] the internet of everything is changing everything. cisco. tomorrow starts here. here we go, everyone. cameras

. >> arthur rosenberg, they are searching in an area that has a tremendous amount of ocean trash. i mean, could we see a similar dynamic that we saw in the aerial search? possible leads, possible debris detect detected that turns out to be just trash? i mean, do we need to be cautious? >> we have to delineate what is going on top of the water? i don't think that is enough of an asset to cover efficient lly and effectively the area we have to cover. kind of reminds me if we were in an area fielding the team. there are other assets they can use, which is the orion, the towed sonar scanner, which would speed it up and make this more efficient. >> but someone has to pay for these assets, you can see they're scaling back the aerial search. and i'm sure partially it is because there is money involved in it. mary, am i wrong, getting those assets out there it will in occur a lot of expense? >> it will incur a lot of expense that is borne by the countries. we saw it in the twa flight, the ntsb, there were just not budgets for that huge of a scale of an effort. and that was about 45 to $50

>>er arthur rosenberg, they are searching in an area that has a tremendous amount of ocean trash. could we see a similar die nam nick the aerial search that turn out to be just trash? do we need to be cautious even if there are results from the bluefin? >> i think you have to delineate between what's floating on top of the water and what's going on under the water. the thing with the bluefin, i think is this. i don't think that's enough of an asset to cover officially and effectively the area we have to cover. kind of reminds me if you were in a world series and fielding the field with half of your team. there are other assets they can use. like the side scanning sonar which are a hell of a lot cheaper than the bluefin and would certainly speed things up and make this wreckage location more efficient. >> someone has to pay for those assets. as you can see now, they are scaling back the aerial search. i'm sure partially it's because there's money involved in this. mary, am i wrong? to get those assets out there it is going to incur a lot of expense. >> it will incur a lot of expens

arthur rosenberg?bottom line, you say icao and the united nations have to enter the fray and get the malaysians to come clean. >> david? >> we need to get congress to put an ambassador back in to the icao so we can push this from the united states side to get the rights exercised that they do have. >> jim tillman? >> we need to have some method of making sure the families know how much effort is being used on their behalf. and i think it's phenomenal. >> michael kaye? >> simple, don -- transparency. >> that's it. and jeffrey thomas? >> we need the release of that factual report straight away through icao. >> jeff wise? >> first of all, the families need to be told what their right are. the malaysians haven't even told them yet. >> yeah. thank you, guys. appreciate all of you again this evening. i'm don lemon. thank you very much for watching. that's it for us tonight. "ac 360" start right now. >>> good evening, there's breaking news tonight. growing doubt about what has seemed to be an encouraging disc

richard quest and arthur rosenberg are with us.en that there is a lot we don't know and that is a small piece of this, this you say is not coincidence the copilot's cell phone was on. >> right. to get to that point, i say you have to look at this new crumb of information. the malaysians have been trickling out these crumbs. some are good crumbs. they lead to the cheese. the other ones aren't so good. but you have to look at this in the context of what we know. what do we know? you start at 1:0. acars makes the last report. 12 minutes the now famous communication, "good night malaysia 370." two minutes later the plane makes the left turn, heads for a beeline across the malay peninsula. and now we find out there is a handshake between the copilot's cell phone and a cell tower over penang. and the formal communication attributed to the captain means the copilot's flying. so just let's extend it out over 30 minutes. >> what they had said, good night malaysia 370. they said that was the pilot. the analysis they're saying is the pilot. y

aviation analyst mary schiavo is a former inspector general at the department of transportation and arthur rosenbergd to see both of you. >> how are you? >> i'm good arthur, let me begin with you. what do you envision some of the legal challenges given that there is no debris, there are no bodies, no answers in the disappearance of the plane? >> first of all, with the interview with richard quest and the prime minister they kind of talked about the issue of would they say the plane is lost. the issue of the plane being lost is important because that will now allow various courts in the united states and the like to make a declaration that the passengers on the airplane are deceased. once they are deceased, now question with file a wrongful death actions under the montreal convention if the proof plays out there was that involved or manufacturer involved. it's really the threshold issue that has to be resolved in order for these people to move forward with their lawsuits. >> and so, mary, these legal challenges would likely pursue boeing, the makers of the plane's engines, but no one knows if there w

joining me now to discuss is david gallow and arthur rosenberg, a pilot and aviation engineer and cnnation analyst michael kay. david, i want to begin with you. this talk of this deadline have you a great success rate what is found in air france after two years. very difficult conditions as well. what is the significance of this going through, saying, we have another week to look at the search area that we have to find, at which point, we are going to rethink if we haven't found anything? >> the logical thing to do. we have a ways to go yet. five to six days and a lot could happen in that time. i think they are halfway through that area. if they fint nothing we have to go back to the pingers and the best evidence we have that this is the resting place of malaysian flight 370. >> if you relook at the pings from the data recorders to make a reassessment -- >> let's make sure we didn't miss it. i know they have been being careful but be sure you don't leave that area until you're positive it's not there. >> arthur, another question for you. there has been frustration from the beginning o

joining me arthur rosenberg, les abend and jeff wise. what do you think, jeff?y interesting of the timing of this coming out. because the australians' underwater search seems to have hit more or less of a dead-end. and now, there has always been theories that people have. i get a lot of e-mails and comments on my blog about oh, i saw this picture from a satellite photo. have i this reason to think it's over here. lots of people have lots of theories. now there is an explosion. and this is just one of hundreds. >> right. i mean, although they do have these images. let me, arthur, play for you what the ceo of this company said as to why they released the images to the public at this time. >> sure, sure. >> we're a large group of scientists, and we were being ignored. and we thought we had a moral obligation to get the finding out into the authorities. >> well, look. here is the bottom line. he said that to add gravitas to his analysis. this analysis, speck spectral analysis, from what i've been told it's based on the demilitarized russian military which has had su

i want to bring in first arthur rosenberg and richard quest who is covering kuala lumpur tonight. let me start with you, arthur and jeff, because your here with me in the studio. you hear miguel saying the single best promising lead has so far turned up nothing. there could be a miracle. this hour we get the results that the bluefin didn't find anything. we might find out in the next ten minutes that they found the plane. but we're probably not. so here is my question to you. do they know they're searching in the best place? they say this was the best ping. the others weren't that good. if some weren't that good, might they all not be good? >> here is the bottom line. it's not just the pings. it's also the inmarsat satellite data. it's the radar data. and it's the pings. three separate analyses which all coalesced in this particular area. the way i look at it is the pings are a microscope that give us a more probable location for the airplane. but even the pings define a large area which has to be surveyed with sonar. so i believe that they're looking in the right place. i would no

joining me now are aviation analyst arthur rosenberg and jeff weise and les abend.with you. there have been some reporting out of asia to that end about the plane being intact. why do you think there is a chance that that could be the case? >> well, in the absence as we noted many times, in the absence of any debris or wreckage, the only reason we have to believe that the plane is in the southern ocean is the assurances of the authorities. now, we have heard reference to this inmarsat data. we don't have that data. 'don't have the analysis, and we don't know what assumptions were put into it to produce this search area. all we have had to go on is the assertions by the malaysians and the australians as well. and you remember the language that tony abbott used when he assured, he spoke before parliament, he went up to china and told the chinese that it was very confident that we were on the verge of finding this plane. those promises have come up empty and left a lot of people wondering what were those assumptions. what was that analysis? why did they say the plane w

i want to bring in les abend and arthur rosenberg. it was an extraordinary interview. he said to richard, what do we have going for us? what is the snefd the evidence is the pings and the handshakes. that's all there. >> first, let me give richard a compliment, because i thought that interview was spectacular. the questions were focused, the answers he got from the prime minister reflected the quality of the questions. now, my largest takeaway on the positive side from this interview was this. when the prime minister was meeting with the inmarsat people and the other experts to determine a location of the airplane, he said to them and he reported in the interview where is it? and they told him that it was in the location where we're looking now. prime minister responded that's basically halfway to the south pole. are you sure? are you sure? are you sure? and they said we are as confident as we can be. from my take of that from a prime minister, a head of state who has a lot more access to information than we do, i think that's a shot in the arm for confidence that we a

. >> richard quest is with me now in kuala lumpur along with les abend and arthur rosenberg here in new york. here is the thing. they know a lot more than we know. let's take for example the one thing the copilot's cell phone pinged a tower. and they didn't say about anyone else's phone on the tower pinging the. i only raise that to make the point that they know more than they have told us. so do you think they have a working theory what happened that they're not sharing? >> i think that in the back of their minds, they do all have some idea of what they believe happened. and the prime minister was not and would not even privately tell me what he thought. but if you talk to other people here, if you talk to those close to a lot of people, they do move to the nefarious theory. and yet, and yet i'm going to -- i can feel arthur about to leap himself out of the seat. and yet all of the sudden out of nowhere, i'll be talking to a 777 captain from the airline who will put forward a perfect scenario for a mechanical option involving the oxygen bottles which are stored in the double e bay unde

richard quest is with me along with aviation analyst arthur rosenberg. let's just start with the emergency locators because that's what nick finished his reporting on. they didn't activate. so obviously that could mean a controlled landing, as he said. it could also mean they were manually turned off. that even possible that you could manually disable those or not? >> the location of the elts. >> the emergency locators. >> they're not just sitting there. he talk about it being in the slide, the evacuation slide, because the evacuation slide in the doorway at the rear and the front, that is also used as a raft. >> right. >> so it's not the sort of thing that you would have easy, ready access and would be able to disengage in an easy manner. i think that -- why the elts did not go off is one of the conundrums of this story. >> and so then that would mean, if richard's pointing out here, it's almost impossible to go manually turn those off. >> right. that would mean a controlled landing. >> we've talked about this a lot, actually. and i think one of the big