Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Should Cameras Be Streaming from Cockpit?; Religious Freedom Law Criticized As Anti-Gay; Germanwings Co-Pilot's Illness; Iran's Amanda Knox Cleared of Charges. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired March 28, 2015 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Well, if you know someone who is going the extra mile to help others like Marilyn go to cnnheroes.com. Tell us about them.

Top of the hour. I'm Poppy Harlow. Joining you in New York. Thank you for being with me.

First we begin with this. There are shocking new revelations about the man officials say deliberately piloted Flight 9525 right into the French Alps. An ex-girlfriend of the co-pilot, 27-year-old Andreas Lubitz, telling German tabloid "Bild" that he was a troubled man who had bad dreams that his plane was going down. And while CNN cannot independently confirm that report, it comes after police found a shredded sick note pronouncing Lubitz unfit to work.

There are also reports citing anonymous sources that say that Lubitz was suffering from a mental illness as well as vision problems that may have threatened his career. And our Pamela Brown has just learned on the ground in Germany from a German aviation source that Lubitz passed a physical recertification exam just last summer.

Let's go straight to Cologne, Germany, that's where Will Ripley joins us. Will, I know you're learning more about the co-pilot's mental state from what is now numerous reports. Who are they sourcing and what are they saying they know at this point?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right, Poppy. Information is coming in from a number of different sources, Poppy. And some of it has been verified by CNN. Others has not. But as we learn more about this co- pilot, Andreas Lubitz, this is the newspaper article where they claimed to have interviewed one of his ex-girlfriends.

We paint a picture of a man who from a very young age loved to fly. And in fact, based essentially his self-worth on being able to be an airline pilot. But in recent years was becoming less satisfied with the fact that he wasn't flying the longer routes that he wanted to fly. And then of course there's this issue of a medical diagnosis. Now, we heard from our Pamela Brown that he passed his exam last year, last summer. He would have been due for another exam in either June or July of this year. But we know that in Dusseldorf where he lived he went to a clinic and received treatment in February or at least an exam in February and then some sort of diagnosis in March. On March 10th. The diagnosis that the clinic says was not for depression. But if as the "New York Times" claims citing two unnamed sources he was diagnosed with some sort of a vision problem that could have prevented him from flying, and if he did indeed have a pattern of mental instability, you can see where investigators are going with this as they try to piece together what could have led up to this horrific incident that cost 150 lives.

There is an interview, a new interview coming out with a pilot who flew with Lubitz and described him as many others have, completely normal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FRANK WOTON, FLEW WITH ANDREAS LUBITZ (through translator): I flew with this colleague once around three or four weeks ago. I had one flight with him. He seemed to me quite normal. I think the media already mentioned that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RIPLEY: And so this obviously, Poppy, has really rattled pilots here in Europe and around the world to the core because there is this bond. There's this trust that when you're in the cockpit you have so many lives that you are responsible for. That's why airlines around the world are instituting new policies requiring that two people be in the cockpit at all times, Poppy.

HARLOW: And Lufthansa mandating that immediately after this tragic incident happened. Also today, Will, we've learned the name of the captain who was outside banging, banging on the door, the authorities say, trying to get back in that cockpit. So also one of the victims in all of this. What else do we know about him?

RIPLEY: Patrick Sonnenheimer. For the first time now we're able to say his name. We've been trying for several days to confirm his identity. And while we don't know a whole lot about him because the relative who spoke to CNN declined to comment and asked as other families have that they be given their space and their distance. And we certainly respect that.

But we want our viewers to know that we are working to tell the story of this heroic man, a man who was apparently, if investigators, if this is accurate, was locked out of the cockpit. Tried desperately to get back in, to break back, in to save those lives. We know his name and we promise that we will work to find out more about this man who really did try heroically to save this flight which crashed into that mountain. Poppy.

HARLOW: Absolutely. Will Ripley, thank you for the reporting. We appreciate it.

Also another headline I want to bring you. Breaking late last night, Amanda Knox finally getting news that she has been waiting for. She smiled as she emerged from her home in Seattle last night to speak briefly with reporters this after the Italian Supreme Ccourt overturned her conviction for the murder of her roommate, Meredith Kercher, back in 2007 when they lived as exchange students in Italy. Here's what Knox had to say about that ruling.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANDA KNOX, CLEARED OF ROOMMATE'S MURDER: I just wanted to say that I'm incredibly grateful for what has happened, for the justice I've received, for the support that I've had from everyone, from my family, from my friends, to strangers, to people like you. You saved my life. And I'm so grateful. And I'm so grateful to have my life back. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Well, Knox had been sentenced to at least 28 years in prison. Her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, who was also convicted of killing Meredith Kercher, has also been cleared by the high court.

A question about the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri sparked a beat down on board a St. Louis light rail train.

(VIDEO PLAYING)

HARLOW: Very difficult to watch. Those three suspects seen punching and kicking the man Monday night as he rode home. The victim trying to cover his face with his hands and his forearms to try to avoid the punches in any way that he possibly can. Wow.

Nick Valencia joins me now. Nick, it's very hard to watch that. What sparked it?

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: According to the victim, he said it all started when one of the suspects asked to use his phone. He said no. That's when the conversation turned to Mike Brown and what he thought of the Mike Brown situation. And that's when things escalated very quickly into violence.

Adding insult to injury, that train you saw was full and no one stopped to help.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

VALENCIA (voice-over): Ambushed on the metro. Cell phone video catches this assault on a 43-year-old white man.

UNIDENTIFED MALE: Whenever I got punched in the face, my glasses came down and split the skin here between the bridge of my nose.

VALENCIA: The victim, who has asked that his name not be used for safety reasons, says what hurts him the most is out of all the people who witnessed the attack, no one stopped to help.

According to the police report, the assault began around 10:00 p.m. Monday night when one of the suspects asked to use the victim's phone. When the victim refused - UNIDENTIFED MALE: He asked me my opinion on the Michael Brown thing. And I responded I was too tired to think about it right now. And he stood up. Next thing I know he sucker punches me right in the middle of my face.

VALENCIA: The attacker punched him at least a dozen times before exiting the train with two others. Police are looking for the three men described to be in their early 20s.

Metro link tells CNN affiliate KMOV that it spends at least $10 million a year for off duty officers and security.

DIANE WILLIAMS, METROLINK SPOKESWOMAN: What we're doing in response is talking to St. Louis city, our partner in the city, about how they can increase their patrols and increase their protection of our system.

UNIDENTIFED MALE: I think it was disgusting that no one - that people were sort of laughing and smiling about it. No one offered to help.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VALENCIA: Those three suspects have not been located or identified. As far as the victim is concerned, he only suffered superficial injuries. He wasn't even in the hospital. But he did say though he's going to take a break from riding Metro link out of fear for his own safety. Poppy?

HARLOW: Wow. Nick Valencia, thank you very much.

VALENCIA: You bet.

HARLOW: Coming up next, is Iran a failing nation crippled by sanctions or a rising superpower pulling strings in Syria, Iraq and Yemen? We'll talk about that next.

Also we're answering your questions about the Germanwings crash. Tweet us right now any question you have. Use the #germanwingsqs. We'll get to that as well. Quick break, we'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Is Iran actually a rising power in the Middle East, or are these sanctions crippling Iran? It's a good question as we see Iran involved in Syria, supporting the Assad regime, also Iranian-backed militias fighting in Iraq trying to help retake Tikrit. Now a coalition led by Saudi Arabia, launching air strikes against the Iranian-allied Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Take a look at that map. When you see the red that is where the support from Iran and rebels, the yellow, the coalition forces aligned with the United States in all of this. The predominantly Sunni nation are working to rescue Yemen's deposed government. Well, all this as the U.S. tried to hammer out a nuclear deal with Tehran by a March 31st deadline. That is this Tuesday. Former CIA operative Bob Baer joins me from Los Angeles to talk about it. Bob, you have been talking for years about the threat of Iran and how Iran could emerge the winner in the Middle East. Where do you think we end up when all is said and done here in terms of the negotiations and whether Iran gets these sanctions lifted by the U.S. or not? Does Iran win?

ROBERT BAER, FMR. CIA OPERATIVE: Well Poppy, I'm a bit biased. Seven years ago I wrote a book about this that by default we would have to ally with Iran simply because the Sunnis were collapsing in this Al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism and we'd have to go with the more rational side with this which is Iran. Not exactly our friend but they're more rational. There's a return address.

I would say right now, and I could be wrong maybe tomorrow that we're going to get an agreement, a nuclear agreement. We're going see the Iranians play a predominant influence in at least eastern Iraq and with the Kurds. They're continuing to control affairs in Lebanon, parts of Syria and in Yemen. And if you're an Arab, a Sunni Arab, you'd have to look at the Iranians as on the move in expanding power. They've got 70 million people. It's the one country in the Middle East that's totally unified, that's not coming apart at the seams. And they will take advantage of these power vacuums and they'll do very well.

The outcome I can't tell you. But the reason the Saudis have gone into Yemen is because they're very worried about their future.

HARLOW: Sure and then what about the fact that just in the past few weeks, we heard General David Petraeus who led for a long time the U.S. mission in Iraq saying, "open your eyes, Iran is a bigger threat to the region than ISIS." What does that tell us?

BAER: I think he's right. I asked around question of the defense minister in Iraq for instance, (INAUDIBLE) he's a Sunni but he was green lit by Tehran. We agreed with that. I think that expanding Iran will destabilize the Middle East. As we were just talking about will possibly risk a regional war that could be very disastrous for everybody. And I don't see the Iranians stopping at this point. Putting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, commanders in Iraq, is hugely transgressive for the Arabs.

HARLOW: Bob Baer, thank you so much. Stay with us. We have more from Bob later in the program.

We're also going to continue to follow our top story that tragic crash of that Germanwings flight. We know more about the last physical now taken by the co-pilot that the airline says deliberately flew that plane into the Alps. Does that examination shed any more light on the tragedy? We'll get the latest on that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: All right. We're going to have the latest on the Germanwings plane crash investigation in just a moment.

But first I do want to bring you this. We just got a new statement in from Raymond Selke of Virginia. He is the man who lost his wife and daughter right there as you see them in this crash. They were two of three Americans on board. And let me read you in part what he said in this statement.

"My son and I are incredibly proud of our girls and will miss them terribly. We would take this opportunity to thank everyone who has taken time to communicate expressions of sympathy and offers of support. Those sentiments are very dear to us and mean more than you can imagine as we move through this grieving process."

It is impossible to imagine what he and so many families are going through. This as new questions continue to emerge from the investigation of the Germanwings airline crash. How much if anything did the airline know about the mental state of the man who officials say deliberately crashed this plane?

Let's talk about it with Dr. Jacquline Brunetti, a senior aviation medical examiner. Also Brian Claypool, a criminal defense attorney joins me from Los Angeles. Thank you both for being here.

Brian, let me begin with you. You spent part of your career defending French airliners and Airbus specifically. When you look at this, Lufthansa CEO has said that obviously something tragic happened here. Lubitz slipped through the safety precautions that they have. The airline believed that he was indeed fit to fly. They say they had no knowledge of those medical notes that were found in his apartment torn up saying if he was unfit to fly. Do you think that Lufthansa faces liability here?

BRIAN CLAYPOOK, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, first of all, Poppy, the comment by the CEO that Lubitz was 100 percent fit to fly is irresponsible and it's not based on any fact. When I did defense work for French Airbus, I will tell you that very little went into screening of pilots. In fact, our own federal regulations in terms of pilot training and screening are very weak, Poppy.

Our regulations deal primarily with the training of pilots. There's very little as far as whether a pilot is fit. In this case the issue is not well, did Lufthansa know about it? And gee, did Lubitz hide this from us? The issue is should they have known? And it's my position that clearly they should have done more.

We need more transparency with pilots. They need to be subjected to mental health assessments. Not a five-minute discussion how are you doing? And then once they're hired, Poppy, we need to have more regulations in place to make sure that the mental health of these pilots is continuously regulated.

HARLOW: Doctor, I see you nodding your head here. Just to give our viewers some perspective, you are one of the doctors that evaluates these pilots every six months to make sure they are indeed fit to fly. But you don't do routine psychological examinations. And that confounds a lot of people.

DR. JACQUELINE BRUNETTI, SENIOR AVIATION MEDICAL EXAMINER: Right. That's correct, Poppy. I think what keep the flying public need to understand is that a commercial pilot is evaluated medically every six months. And in that exam, it would be like going to your G.P. where a standard physical is done. But the doctor should also get an assessment of more or less the psychological state, not really do a specific psychological testing. That's not included in that every six-month exam.

HARLOW: Should it be? I think that's part of what Brian's saying.

BRUNETTI: And I see that that is a big issue right now simply because of this crash. You know, it makes sense that people would feel that that would be an important thing to do. The problem with that is is, who would be doing that exam? Certainly the aviation medical examiner is not a trained psychiatrist or psychologist. Who will pay for that exam? The commercial pilots for the most part are paying for these exams out of pocket. They're not covered by their medical policies. So unless it's a corporate pilot who has good benefits, it's all out of pocket expense.

HARLOW: I do have to let Brian respond. Because I heard him trying to jump in there.

CLAYPOOL: Yes, Poppy, look. This is ridiculous. I'm pretty outraged by this. If you want to run an airline and you want to hire a pilot that is going to put 150 lives in his or her hands, then you as the airline better hire somebody to assess these pilots. And I'll tell you what the real story is here.

Airlines worldwide don't really want to know what the truth is about their pilots because if they do find out, that will put them on notice that they're possibly unfit. Let me finish. If they do find out then they could be facing more liability.

HARLOW: I understand your point. Don't know if it's fair to say airlines don't want to know. Jacqueline?

BRUNETTI: I'm sorry, Poppy. I'm not hearing him. He seems very animated. So I'd like to know what he's saying.

HARLOW: He's saying - we'll get that fixed so you can hear him. What he's saying is that it is sort of unconscionable he's saying that airlines shouldn't have to hire someone to evaluate the mental state of the pilots who are going to be flying planes with people's lives in their hands. And that this shouldn't even be a question.

BRUNETTI: Well, I think the industry standard is that there is some evaluation on hiring the pilot. To talk about - does it make sense? It makes sense. Is it going to stop this problem? I don't know. And again, it's an issue of the testing and what kind of testing. So I think this is something that we're going to be thinking about and talking about for awhile to really come to some sort of decision as to what's the right way forward.

HARLOW: Doctor, thank you very much. Stand by. You're going to be with me later in the program. Brian, thank you as well. You'll be with me as well. We appreciate it. Now, this - could technology help us prevent another disaster of this kind? We're going to talk about cameras in the cockpit. That you can see from the ground at all times.

But first in this week's "Human Factor," Dr. Sanjay Gupta shines the spotlight on a singer-songwriter who uses her struggle to inspire others.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Jamie Grace grew up dreaming of becoming a singer-songwriter.

Before she could begin pursuing a career in music, she got some news that put her dreams on hold. At the age of 12, Jamie was diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome.

JAMIE GRACE, SINGER: I wanted to be a singer. I had no idea what Tourette's syndrome was. All I found were clips from movies of these actors yelling and cursing. I remember sitting there and just crying my eyes out.

GUPTA: Instead of letting her condition silence her, Jamie turned to Youtube. Just two years after her diagnosis, Jamie began posting videos of herself singing. She got the attention of record labels and an online audience.

GRACE: I didn't blow up like Justin Bieber did. But I had a really cool response.

GUPTA: Now she's using her stage and her story to inspire others. Jamie started her own foundation, I'm a Fighter.

GRACE: It's daily stories of fighters. A little kid with cancer or a hard-working father.

I really hope that my songs connect with people. I really want to bring them encouragement.

GUPTA: Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, reporting.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[16:30:00] HARLOW: The crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 is renewing calls by some for cameras in the cockpit. We're talking about cameras that can be monitored from the ground in real time, during flight. Some say this is a very good idea. Others consider it a violation of pilot privacy.

There is a lot to debate on this about how to upgrade cockpits and make them safer.

Let's talk about it with our panel, back with us, joining me here on studio, Richard Quest, our CNN aviation correspondent, CNN safety analyst and former FAA safety inspector, David Soucie, and Les Abend, a Boeing 777 captain and CNN aviation analyst. Richard Quest, to you first.

RICHARD QUEST, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: Yes?

HARLOW: Is this a smart idea?

QUEST: Whether it's a smart idea or not, I mean, I'm not sure it adds most other than in the post investigation. A camera in the cockpit, first, two things have to happen -- you've got to get the pilots to agree to let cameras being put in the cockpit. Then, you've got to decide, are you going to stream this in real time or are you just going to use it like another recorder, voice recorder, data recorder?

HARLOW: Sure.

QUEST: If you're going to stream it in real time, you've got problems the sheer amount of bandwidth necessary to stream all this stuff from tens of thousands of planes.

HARLOW: And people are watching each and every one all the time.

QUEST: Well, you wouldn't -- well, what would happen is you would so arrange it so that you don't need to. You would have sort of an algorithm that if a plane diverts from a known flight plan or suddenly becomes unstable, then it would pop up automatically. That's the theory of the idea.

I have to say, I do not see how it's deterrent. You can put something over it. You could cover it, whatever.

And if you are hell-bent on destruction, are you really going to be worried by a camera viewing you in that act?

HARLOW: So, Les, Richard makes a very good point. You're in the cockpit. You fly a 777 over the Atlantic back and forth every single week. Would you allow a camera in the cockpit?

LES ABEND, CNN AVIATION ANALYST: I'm in favor of anything that enhances safety. And I'm with Richard on a lot of his points.

However, a camera can be subject to misinterpretation. I mean, we saw what happened with various police videos, what really we saw and what really happened could be two different things.

So, the other part of it is, here's our fear mostly as pilots, is that it can be used as disciplinary type actions rather than something to enhance safety down the road. And then as Richard said, it becomes what we call tombstone technology. Once you utilize that unless it's live streaming data, all it does it enhances the cockpit voice recorder and what you have left from the digital flight data recorder. If we can have systems in place where it's not a disciplinary situation for a pilot, then we could start talking about that.

HARLOW: David, let me ask you this. Also what is being discussed is changing -- possibly changing how cockpits are constructed, the lock on the door that it is believed used for the exact opposite purpose of why it was created. It was created to keep the bad people out in this situation it looks like it kept the good person that needed to be in the cockpit, the pilot, the captain out.

Should that be addressed in terms of changing the locking mechanisms on these doors?

DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: Here we have this safety chasing the tail here. Because what happens is you add a safety feature to prevent X. Now you've created Y. So now, we add a safety feature. We're going to add cameras now to stop Y. But then Y is going to create another problem.

What we're not doing is defining what it is that we're trying to fix in the first place. If you talk about the second person in the cockpit, the only reason the second person was put there was not to prevent a hijacker or prevent the situation. The second person was put there in the design of this door so that when they didn't have cameras so they didn't know. So when someone knocks on the door and says "I want in", if the pilot's alone he'd have to stop flying the airplane, jump up, look through the little peephole and say, yes, he looks safe and open the door. So that's why -- that's the primary reason there's a second person in here.

Now, so we've created this other thing because now we've got this thing where you can lock people out. So, what I'm saying is, we need to spend a little bit more time examining the problem before we come up with a fix that may be a round peg in a square hole until we know really what the problem needs to be dealt with.

HARLOW: Richard?

QUEST: I can understand the enormous desire to come up with something fast as a result of 9525. And indeed, Carsten Spohr, the CEO, came into criticism that he didn't immediately say two people in the cockpit.

HARLOW: Right. I think pretty quickly mandated that, two days.

QUEST: Correct, because it seemed like an easy quick fix. But when you're talking longer term, you really do have to think this through.

ABEND: It's a band-aid.

QUEST: Right. What are the longer term implications? And I'm not talking about whether somebody can serve coffee or what's going to be the other work. But what are the longer term implications of what you are about to do? Because I guarantee you one thing, Poppy, it will be very easy to get the camera in the cockpit. It will be very difficult to actually get it out or do anything to change it once it's there.

[16:35:04] HARLOW: No question about it. Guys stay with me. We're going to continue to talk about this and a whole lot more. Thank you very much.

Also, switching gears to a very important story this week. Indiana's economy could take a big hit from a new law which many say legalizes discrimination specifically against gay men and women in this country. It was just signed by the governor of Indiana in a state where the Final Four is taking place in just a matter of days. The NCAA weighing in, Charles Barkley, the CEO of Apple. A lot of people are talking about this. We'll discuss it, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: Well, you can add Angie's List to the list of companies potentially pulling out of the state of Indiana, after the governor of Indiana signed what has become a very controversial Religious Freedom Act. Some say that this allows witnesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers in the name of religious freedom. The state of Indiana says it is not that, rather a company can take this to court if a government entity is involved. Angie's List CEO says the company's expansion project in Indianapolis is on hold until the law's impact on employees is fully understood.

Here's what CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin told me about the law.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I think the law itself is almost certainly constitutional. It's very similar to a federal law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. But there are going to be circumstances in which the law is applied which may wind up in court cases and they may wind up before the Supreme Court.

HARLOW: Look, the NCAA has spoken out about this. They said they're concerned. You've got Final Four about to take place in Indianapolis. And the Republican governor -- rather the Republican mayor of Indianapolis has said he opposes this idea despite his Republican governor supporting it. How much do you think it is going to be a challenge on that front in terms of public perception and businesses?

TOOBIN: See, Poppy, I think that's the real issue. I think this is much more a political issue at this point than a legal issue. I think it's clear that Indiana has the right to pass a law like this. Similarly, businesses have a right to say, you know, we don't like this law. We don't like your state anymore. And we're going to take our business elsewhere.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: All right. Well, overnight, basketball legend Charles Barkley weighed in, saying, quote, "Discrimination in any form is unacceptable to me. As long as anti-gay legislation exists in any state, I strongly believe big events such as the final four and the super bowl should not be held in those states and cities." Of course, the Final Four just a few days away from being held in Indianapolis.

Joining me now to talk about it, CNN political commentator Ben Ferguson, host of "The Ben Ferguson Show".

[16:40:01] Ben, I just want to be very clear here. I had a discussion with the governor of Indiana's office this week about this.

BEN FERGUSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Sure.

HARLOW: They said basically the media is misconstruing this. And they said, look, the governor himself said he said this bill is not about discrimination. If I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. And they said this is only if a government entity is involved, then businesses can take it to the courts.

Here's the thing, though -- counties in Indiana are government entities. So, Christian businesses or any business that doesn't want certain customers could say in court that the counties can't force them to serve gay people. Where do you fall on this?

FERGUSON: I think that is going a little bit to the extreme. I think the reality is, people that have private businesses should be able to hold true to their religious beliefs. For example, if someone walks into an openly gay restaurant or bar and says, I want to rent your venue for a pro-marriage event, should those owners be able to say, no, we are not going to allow you to rent our venue because you're standing up for something that is completely against our life and our lifestyles? I think they should be able to say no.

At the same time, if someone that makes a wedding cake is asked to make a cake that is for a gay wedding, they should have the right based on their religious beliefs as a private business to say no to that.

We already have this where people put posters up that say, do not bring your firearm into my business even if you have a permit to carry, which is issued by the United States government.

So, this is not something new or shocking. No shirt no shoes no service is another example of that.

FERGUSON: Ben, isn't that different? Choosing to carry a firearm in somewhere, choosing to buy a gun, than being gay? Than being born gay?

FERGUSON: I think the difference is, if you have a private business. And as a business do you have to right to stand by your moral convictions and your values?

I'll go back to the first thing I said. If you are an openly gay couple and you have an openly gay bar and someone comes in to rent it for a pro-marriage -- traditional marriage rally, should that gay couple be able to say, look, what you're going to have is completely against my lifestyle, I am not going to rent you my venue for your traditional marriage rally?

I think that openly gay couple that owns an openly gay business should have the right to do that. And they shouldn't be attacked by the government or charged with a crime or be shut down because they chose to stand by their personal beliefs. It works both ways.

HARLOW: Hey, Ben, what if you are -- I want you to address this. What if a racist person says, I don't want a black person or a Hispanic person or a white person in my business? How is this different?

FERGUSON: I think it's different because that is something that does not come down specifically to religious beliefs. I think when you're talking about traditional marriage or gay marriage, it is something that has been voted on.

(CROSSTALK)

FERGUSON: Poppy, let me finish.

HARLOW: It's not just about married people. I'm talking about someone gay not just a married gay person.

FERGUSON: But, Poppy, we have people that voted on gay marriage recently in quite a few states, including California. This is a political issue, not a race issue. It has been treated as a political issue, a personal issue for many voters. And they put it on a ballot. No one was screaming about it then.

So, why now is all of a sudden now it's this civil rights movement issue when it wasn't before when people voted on it?

HARLOW: Here's the difference, right? Gay marriage is one thing. And people have their certain political, religious beliefs about that. This isn't addressing that. It's not just saying -- and it doesn't even use the word LGBT or gay in the law. It's about religious freedom.

But isn't there a difference, Ben, between allowing someone to hold an event that is a pro-gay event, right, or an anti-gay marriage event -- isn't there a difference than inviting that person in then being objecting to whether gay people can marry one another? There's a difference. It's about serving a person --

(CROSSTALK)

HARLOW: -- of color or being gay.

FERGUSON: Right. And based on the interpretation of the law, this is not where you can post up a flier that says no gay people are allowed to come into my bakery or my restaurant or eat at my venue or attend an event in my venue. This is about forcing a private business owner to basically have to make something for someone for an event which they disagree with.

I think there is a difference there. If someone has a venue and says no gay people allowed, I think we can all agree that would be incredibly bigoted and that would be wrong.

[16:45:00] I think what the law is saying is, I shouldn't be forced if I am a business that has moral beliefs, Christian belief or whatever it may be in traditional marriage, I should not be forced to use my venue or make something for somebody that goes against my personal values as a private business owner, the same way that a gay couple that owns a business shouldn't have to do it for traditional marriage. HARLOW: I read the law and it does not distinguish whether it is

serving someone a meal or making a wedding cake for a certain kind of wedding. And I think, Ben, you and I could both agree we're going to have to see how this plays out in the state of Indiana. Come back on next week. Let's keep talking about it ahead of the NCAA Final Four being there.

FERGUSON: Thanks, Poppy.

HARLOW: Thanks very much, Ben. I appreciate it.

Ahead, much more on the top story, the tragic Germanwings crash, including your questions, you've been tweeting us. Keep tweeting us, your questions @PoppyHarlowCNN, use #GermanwingsQs. We'll get to as many as we can.

Straight ahead. Quick break, back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: The pictures are incredibly hard to watch. And for a lot of people the fear of flying is very, very real. Despite the latest high profile airline disasters, the past year or so has been one of the safest, safest on records for airline accidents.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

[16:50:53] UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Regrettably, there were no survivors.

(MUSIC)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We officially declare Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 an accident.

(MUSIC)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:55:48] HARLOW: Welcome back.

We have been asking you, our viewers, to submit your questions about the Germanwings plane crash on Twitter. We have our experts here to answer them.

Let's bring in our panel. Joining me here in New York, CNN aviation correspondent Richard Quest, CNN safety analyst David Soucie, and Les Abend, the 777 captain and CNN aviation analyst. Thank you all for being here.

Also in Los Angeles, criminal defense attorney Brian Claypool. We begin with you, Richard. This question from Cynthia Gaines. She

writes in, "can a cockpit be reconfigured for the pilots' toilet thus allowing files remain in the cockpit throughout the flight?" This is something that has come up.

QUEST: On an A320 or 787, no, there's simply not the space. You could arguably say if you look at 8380 or 747, even a 777, yes, you can configure it so there would be something. It's just not practical. They have managed to get sort of the flight crew's bed rooms or rest areas where you've got another door that will access. It's not practical.

HARLOW: Not practical.

David, this question coming in from Trevor. I see talking heads reviewing remote control for passenger airlines. What about collision avoidance technology? That's interesting. We're seeing some car companies do that.

SOUCIE: Well, there is collision warning technology now.

HARLOW: For example, so this plane couldn't have been set to go to 100 feet in a mountain range.

SOUCIE: You're treading on difficult ground. Because if he'd set it where he can't go to 100 feet how could he land, first of all?

HARLOW: In a mountain range.

SOUCIE: In a mountain range?

HARLOW: So it wouldn't allow you to set anytime a mountain range.

SOUCIE: So, you're relying on that -- you know, again, I go back to this idea, what problem are you trying to solve? Is it the problem of getting someone in the cockpit to do this or are you trying to solve the problem or the fact that he can do that? So, I just don't think it's a good idea to jump to conclusions or try to make a fix fit a problem when we don't really define the problem.

ABEND: There's a system in place called ground proximity warning system that uses database to discover terrain and give pilots plenty of warning for it.

SOUCIE: That's not what he's asking.

ABEND: I understand.

HARLOW: Override the pilot.

Les, let me let you answer this question from Janelle who wrote in aren't pilots examined yearly, biyearly. Wouldn't those examinations questions pick up something wrong? Oh, that's a wrong question. But anyway, Janelle wrote in, you know, about what about these yearly and six-month evaluations? ABEND: Well, they are as captains and first officers that fly

internationally every six months. So, we go to a designated medical examiner. And you had one here as a guest. And the medical examiner, primarily it's physical type of reading, blood pressure, heart rate, and then the AME or aviation medical examiner, is supposed to ask questions pertinent to their lives. Has anything changed in your life? It is cursory. But they are supposed to ask some basic emotional questions.

HARLOW: OK. Also this question, Brian, coming in for you. As an attorney this came into us from Buzzy Moore saying, is the doctor who cited Lubitz as being unfit accountable in any way? And the question here is, should that doctor -- should doctors have to tell airlines, employers, this and not just depend on self-reporting?

BRIAN CLAYPOOL, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That's a fantastic question, Poppy.

The answer is the doctor -- the psychologist would not be liable. And I think this prompts change that we need. I think we should deem the psychologist who assessed the pilots as mandated reporters. If we change the laws, deem them as mandated reporters, then they have to report back to the airline. And then we could pre-empt the problem that we had here. So, we need a change in the laws.

HARLOW: Very quickly, 30 seconds. Do you agree, Richard? Go ahead.

QUEST: No, I don't agree, because you're talk about two different types of doctors. You're talking about your general practitioner versus a medical examiner. A medical examiner has a duty to do so. You cannot turn your regular doctor into a mandated reporter.

HARLOW: Thank you, gentlemen, very much.

CLAYPOOL: I'm talking about a psychologist.

HARLOW: Understood, guys. Got to go. Top of the hour here. We'll talk more about this in the next hour ahead. Thanks so much for being with us.