Return to Transcripts main page
Don Lemon Tonight
Official: Co-Pilot Deliberately Crashed Plane; CEO: Needs Of Families Come First. Aired 11-12p ET
Aired March 26, 2015 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: It's 11:00 p.m. on the east coast, and 4:00 a.m. in the French Alps, where the mystery of Flight 9525 is deepening. We now know that French prosecutors believed that this was a crime, the co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, deliberately crashing the plane into a mountain killing everyone on board.
And transponder data shows that the plane's autopilot was reprogrammed by someone in the cockpit changing the plane's altitude from 38,000 feet to 100 feet. But why did it happen? Lufthansa's CEO tells our Frederik Pleitgen this in a worldwide exclusive.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To tell you the truth, we have no explanation at this point.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Tonight, our expert teams standing by to weigh in on all of this and we want to know what you think, make sure you tweet us using #germanwingsqs.
I want to begin tonight, though, with CNN's Nic Robertson live for us in the French Alps with the very latest. What is the latest on the recovery efforts, Nic?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, due to restart in the next few hours as soon as the sun comes up, you can expect the helicopters to be flying in here to pick up the recovery teams, each recovery team, two members plus a mountain guide.
What is different about tonight, you can maybe see my breath in the air, the ground down here is thick with frost. We are about 4,500 feet, where the recovery effort is going on, it's about 6,000 feet.
The equipment around me is covered in a layer of ice and that is what the recovery workers are going to find when they get up high into the mountains tomorrow.
It is going to be dangerous and treacherous underfoot, and we have seen pictures of them on the mountain side pieces of aircraft. It is steep. At the best of times, in good conditions, it is tough going, and this is what they are going to wake up and face in the next couple of hours -- Don.
LEMON: And Nick, relatives have flown from around the world, what are they seeing?
ROBERTSON: They have been taken to what the French officials say is the closest to the crash site. There was a memorial service, it was very somber. It was very solemn. There were more than 100 family members and they were in the field for this memorial service for a little over an hour. There was a plaque.
On the plaque was the names of every one who was aboard the flight, and they were able to go. We saw them walking forward in the ones and twos and in groups, and perhaps to read the names of their loved ones and the flags of all the different nations who were affected. There was a large wreath of flags --
LEMON: That is our Nic Robertson reporting for us in the French Alps and there is some technical difficulty there, but you can understand.
I want to talk about the French prosecutors now. They say the co- pilot of Flight 9525 deliberately crashed that plane after he locked the pilot out of the plane. So the fate of the plane and the passengers all rest on one small switch.
Kyung Lah is looking into that for us. Kyung, what have you got for us?
KYUNG LAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Don, the switch that we are learning is something that exists in every single commercial plane that is flown around the world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LAH (voice-over): He cannot imagine why a pilot would do this -- but Bugs Forsythe knows how. A retired military and commercial pilot, Forsythe says he has flown thousands of hours in the A320 cockpit, one of the safest high-tech passenger jets used around the world.
MAJ. GENERAL H.H. "BUGS" FORSYTHE, RETIRED MILITARY PILOT: Normal, lock, and unlock.
LAH: He like all pilots has used the switch hundreds of times.
FORSYTHE: To unlock, you have pull it up, and hold it, and the light comes on and says that the door is open, but if I release it, it goes back to the normal position.
LAH (on camera): Norm means that it's locked?
FORSYTHE: That is correct.
LAH (voice-over): According to an airbus operations video, there is a keypad entry on the outside that allows entry if you know the code, but if the person inside the cockpit switches it to lock, the keypad won't work for 5 minutes, and there is another override that goes beyond 5 minutes.
FORSYTHE: I can also override the keypad and hold it in the lock position, and now he cannot use the keypad or enter the door at all, it is locked.
LAH (on camera): No one can get in.
FORSYTHE: No one can get in.
LAH: So to keep your co-pilot out, what do you have to do?
FORSYTHE: To keep him out, if he knew the keyboard pad number to get in, I just hold the lock and he can't get in.
LAH: Can you manually fly this and hold the lock button?
FORSYTHE: Yes, easy.
LAH: But then that is a very purposeful act?
FORSYTHE: Very much so.
LAH (voice-over): Again and again, we fly through the scenarios in auto pilot and manual, both manage to crash the plane, and both had to be deliberately programmed or flown into the ground.
(on camera): What does that suggest to you as far as his determination?
[23:05:08] FORSYTHE: That he was very determine, yes, that was his goal. He had a mission or a goal to kill himself and everybody on board. We deal with terrorists, and people who are not supposed to be in a cockpit. This person is supposed to be in the cockpit that is what's scary.
LAH: So we know how the mechanics of it, but the question of why is what is so hard to understand -- Don.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: Kyung Lah, thank you for that. Now I want to bring in our experts, Alan Diehl is an aviation psychologist, former accident investigator and the author of "Air Safety Investigators," Dan Duke, a retired United Airlines captain and Navy pilot.
Matthew L. Wald, a former "New York Times" aviation safety expert, Jim Hill is a former chairman of the NTSB, Juliette Kayem, CNN national security analyst, and David Soucie, CNN safety analyst and author of "Malaysia Airlines Flight 370."
To you first, so David, the pilot is entering a code outside, if someone is in the cockpit preventing him from getting in to that, would that be recorded somewhere on the flight data recorder?
DAVID SOUCIE, CNN SAFETY ANALYST: It only would be in that if they put the code in, it is going to put in a buzzer, and the buzzer is going to ring for 30 seconds, unless something is done. They would pick that up on the flight data recorder and on the cockpit voice recorder.
LEMON: I want everyone to pay attention to this. This is an airbus safety video, which talks about exactly what we are talking about. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: On the code pad, he presses the emergency code, and enters the hatch key, and the green code will flash indicating imminent unlocking. In the cockpit, the buzzer sounds continuously and the open light flashes also indicating imminent unlocking.
When the elapse time is over with no action from the cockpit crew, the door goes into unlocking sequence for 5 seconds. The green light on the code pad remains steady. The open light comes on for 5 seconds during the unlocking sequence, and the buzzer stops indicating the door is unlocked, and the presser now has 5 second seconds to enter the cockpit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Matthew Wald, you saw that. According to some of our guests earlier, they said it worked perfectly, and they are not sure that there is any reason to change it. Perhaps we should look at mental more instead of changing the procedure when it comes to cockpit door.
MATTHEW L. WALD, FORMER "NEW YORK TIMES" AVIATION SAFETY EXPERT: That is true. Aviation is very safe, and one of the problems is you put in the fix for a one in a million problem, and the fix creates another one in a million problem.
I'm still curious though mental health -- you have Jim Hall on the air with us here. Jim is not a prosecutor. Jim led the investigation of Egypt Air 990. The French lead with the prosecutor. You lead with the prosecutor you get this to apprehend the perpetrator kind of mentality.
And I guarantee you that the problem is going to be a crime. Other people in other parts of the world don't do it this way. They send in the engineers to figure what's going on and if it is a crime, they turn it over to the prosecutors.
I would love to have outside or aviation experts go over the flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder and reach their own conclusion. Jim, do you respond to that?
(CROSSTALK)
LEMON: Jim Hall.
JIM HALL, FORMER CHAIRMAN, NTSB: Yes. I am sorry. And I agree with what matt is saying. I hate to be making the same argument over, but you need before you accuse someone of a heinous crime like this, you need to have all of the evidence in place. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Before you accuse a dead guy of a crime.
HALL: And this is a situation here, I still have not heard that there's adequate information from the flight data recorder, and all of this information regrettably has been leaked evidently.
LEMON: David Soucie.
HALL: Much of it before it was verified by the investigators, themselves.
SOUCIE: Jim, I want to go back to address your cockpit video. I'm not against the cockpit videos, let's start there. What I am against is not learning from lessons learned that we've already learned and that's what is happening here in my estimation.
We have learned that the cockpit door was a deterrent, and we have said that since that's been put in place there hasn't been any unauthorized cockpit access.
Number two, we have learned that by having ensuring there is two people in the cockpit every time we have also prevented any pilot suicides, because there has not been in carriers that use that rule, there has not been any pilot suicides enacted.
So therefore if you are going to use the logic that the door deterred then you have to use the same logic to say that two people in the cockpit deter the suicide.
So that being said, I am not for adding additional technology and additional safety measures when the safety measures have been proven and there are lessons learned.
[23:10:03] That could then simply applied to other carriers across the nation which falls again, I am a broken on this, on IOTA and ICAO to enforce that rule amongst all carriers worldwide.
LEMON: For two people to be in the cockpit, would that help, Alan Diehl?
ALAN DIEHL, AVIATION PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, it has. I basically always agree with David, but there were two pilots in the Egypt Air thing. But Don, there is a couple of other --
SOUCIE: No, there were not two people in the cockpit, Jim?
DIEHL: He entered the cockpit. The captain fought with the --
SOUCIE: While he was gone and then he came back in.
DIEHL: Exactly, and by the time he got back in, David, there was a battle, but I agree with you, David, they should have two, and always have two people in the cockpit. But there has been some programs out there that have been very successful, and these are very infrequent events. I would submit your viewers have more of a chance of dying of an infected bee sting than they do of a crazy captain taking them off in an airliner, but there are a couple of programs very successful, one is crew resource management.
It was designed to prevent accidents, but I submit, it is probably also, we don't know about the incidents that didn't happen, if you will, with the demented pilots or the pilots that are disturbed
We really don't know much about that, but I submit that CRM program has been very successful in doing that. Another program, the second program that was an NTSB initiative, by the way, an FAA program is the alcoholic pilots program.
The public doesn't know much about this, but if a pilot says I'm an alcoholic, and he goes to his union and he goes to his company, and they go to the FAA, they will allow that pilot to continue flying, but he has to be carefully monitored.
That is far better than these pilots who have an alcohol problem concealing it, and secretly continuing to fly. So there are many programs out there, and two that have been successful that we could talk about some other ones.
LEMON: Dan, I want to give you, quickly here, Dan and Juliette, I only have 30 seconds, so Dan, you want to weigh in?
DAN DUKE, RETIRED UNITED AIRLINES CAPTAIN AND NAVY PILOT: Yes, I'd kind of like to weigh on David's side. I think he is the voice of reason here. We have programs that work. We need to establish them worldwide. We've got training that works. We do CRM in the United States, those programs have protected uncountable people, and we just need to implement them worldwide.
JULIETTE KAYYEM, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY ASSISTANT SECRETARY: Well, you have the consensus here that the more redundancies, and backups that you can have in the systems, the cockpit door, the cameras, the training, the psychological help (inaudible), but there are going to be things in the world that we cannot prevent.
We have a system that is carrying a million people up in the air at any given moment, we like our air travel, we like to go places, and you are always going to have to balance security around that.
LEMON: All right, a lot of the show to come. Don't go anywhere, any of you. When we come right back, CNN's worldwide exclusive with the CEO of Lufthansa, he says it is incomprehensible that the co-pilot would crash a plane. We want to know what you think as well about all of this. Make sure you tweet using the #germanwingsqs. Our experts are standing by to answer your questions.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:17:09]
LEMON: The CEO of Lufthansa which owns Germanwings is just as baffled as anyone that the news that the co-pilot apparently deliberately crashed the jet.
Carsten Spohr sat down for a worldwide exclusive interview with CNN's Fred Pleitgen and said that right now the airline is concentrating on the needs of the families of those who are on board.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: How did you inform the relatives of those who were killed about what happened?
CARSTEN SPOHR, CEO, LUFTHANSA: Well, the relatives have been in the focus for the last two days after this terrible accident, and in these for sure darkest hours in the history of the group, and we have tried as much as we can to take care of them.
We have sent counselors. We tried to be with them all around the clock, and we also today managed to get the information to them before they found out from the media, which I think is a sign of respect, which is highly appreciated.
PLEITGEN: How do you explain what happened? I mean, it seems like something that seems so out of the question. How do you explain that something like this could happen on a pilot that was trained in your company, flew for your company?
SPOHR: To tell you the truth, we have no explanation at this point. And we in Lufthansa, have been for decade so proud of selecting the best people to become pilots, training them in the best way, and having them qualified in the best way that something of this kind would ever happen to us is incomprehensible.
And I think we just need to understand this is a single case, which every safety system in the world cannot completely rule out. I think that is what we take as an explanation if you want to call it that.
PLEITGEN: But might there have been signs or could there have been indications that this person might have been mentally unstable?
SPOHR: No, the pilot has passed all his tests, all his medical exams. We have a Lufthansa and the reporting system where crew can report without being punished their own problems or they can report about problems of others without any kind of punishment. That hasn't been used either in this case. So all the safety nets -- all the safety nets we are so proud of here have not worked in this case.
PLEITGEN: So by now, you must be gathering a lot of information about this co-pilot, about Andreas Lubitz, what is it? What do have?
SPOHR: Well, we won't answer this one, but of course, we are looking into things, and of course, even this is a single case, we will now go back and see what we can do to even improve our system further, because Lufthansa safety has always been number one, and that is why we do our utmost to bring it even to a higher level after this terrible accident.
PLEITGEN: I know you have this long evaluation process where people go through several stages, but are there changes that need to be made to that process?
SPOHR: Again, this has been a terrible single case, and we have decades of selecting pilots, and training the pilots in our schools in Northern Germany, in Phoenix, Arizona.
[23:20:08] Qualified people for all different airplanes up to 620 that we have now so I think we will take this back and look for even more better ideas and improvements, but that's going to take some time, and this again, we should not rule from this single case that a system which has worked for so many decades is not as close to perfect as it can be.
PLEITGEN: How big of a blow is this not just for your airline, but also for the credibility of the airline because people fly Lufthansa because they feel that they are in good hands? They feel that the airplanes are very well maintained and that the pilots have the best training and are very professional?
SPOHR: Well, all these reasons to fly Lufthansa are still valid after this terrible accident. We are putting safety as number on in Lufthansa in training and maintenance. Whatever it takes we do what we need to do for improving our safety level even further.
So I think again, after this terrible accident maybe feelings have somewhat been changed and touched, but our professional commitment has not changed a single bit.
PLEITGEN: But you will accept that there are people who might feel uneasy about getting onto one of your planes right now?
SPOHR: We understand emotions after this terrible accident, but for us as professionals we need to ensure that the safety focus of Lufthansa is in no way touched and I promise you it's not and we will do our very, very best to even improve it further.
PLEITGEN: In the United States, for instance, if one of the crew members leaves the cockpit, there always has to be someone who goes in, a flight attendant or something, why was the co-pilot allowed to be in the cockpit alone?
SPOHR: Also in the United States to my knowledge that's only true for very few airlines. Most airlines around the world follow the same procedures as Lufthansa that in flight phases with low work load, a pilot can leave the cockpit especially for physical need and then he returns to the cockpit as fast as he can.
That's a global, the most accepted procedure, which we have used in Lufthansa for many, many years, and I think we look that as well, but we should not put the whole system at stake just because of this terrible single act --
PLEITGEN: Do think you are going to make changes to it?
SPOHR: We will take our time to look into that with our own experts, with experts from the authorities, and with experts from other airlines, I am sure. PLEITGEN: What do you know about what exactly happened? Because I know that some of it you have said that apparently the captain was locked out of the cockpit. What do you know exactly what happened afterwards?
SPOHR: Well, we just know the same thing the public knows from the press statements of the French Investigation Office where apparently after the pilot, after the captain has left the cockpit, he tried to regain the access and knocks on the door according to the French authorities and the door was either kept locked or not opened in the way it was supposed to be and that for sure is a clear indication that the remaining pilot, the co-pilot didn't want the captain to return.
PLEITGEN: So there is no indication -- because we've been talking about there might a medical emergency. There might have been some other event that could have caused the pilot to become incapacitated, you believe that the co-pilot deliberately steered the plane into the mountain.
SPOHR: We do have a safety procedure in place in case the remaining pilot gets unconsciousness, there is a way to open the door from the outside unless the person in the inside blocks it, and this apparently has happened here.
PLEITGEN: So he blocked it from the inside as the captain was trying to get back in?
SPOHR: From what we know he did not allow access to the cockpit. That is exactly what the French authorities have so far informed us about.
PLEITGEN: What did the captain tried do to get back in? Is there a possibility to knock a door down at this stage of the game?
SPOHR: After the terrible 9/11 accidents, we have put, in Lufthansa like most other airlines, doors into our cockpits, which are not to be broken with any force or not even to be opened with small weapons. So there was no way to get back into the cockpit in this case when the co-pilot was not allowing access.
PLEITGEN: How do you break something like this to the relatives of the victims, because for now they were grieving and obviously awful for them, but now there has to be a certain degree of anger as well?
SPOHR: Well, again, we have trained psychologist, people who have done this before, and people who do this in a professional way, and supported of course by the people from Lufthansa, but I think it is incomprehensible to comfort those who lost somebody they loved two days, but we do our very best.
PLEITGEN: A catastrophic event like this one can be an existential threat to a company. Now we know that Lufthansa is a very robust company, a big company, but could this change your strategy?
SPOHR: Well, I think Lufthansa has built up credibility over 60 years now, and again this terrible accident is in no way something I want to play down in its importance -- has been affected.
[23:25:11] But I think the credibility of our group, the way we operate airplanes, and the way we train our people will allow us to get through this and maintain our credibility.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: Frederik Pleitgen reporting there. A lot of legal questions ahead already being raised about the Germanwings catastrophe. Up next, advice from two aviation attorneys.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: There are plenty of legal questions surrounding the crash of Flight 9525 especially now that investigators say the co-pilot deliberately crashed the plane.
Let's talk about it with Michael Verna, an aviation trial attorney, and Steven Marks, an aviation attorney, who represents families of Air France Flight 447. Thank you, Gentlemen, for joining me this evening. Let's get going. Mike, you first.
Let's talk about the legal rights of the grieving families, who had loved ones on that flight. Obviously, nothing can make up for the loss of life, but this tragedy has also thrust a great financial burden upon these families.
[23:30:03] We talked about it a little bit earlier. This goes on beyond emotional distress. There is a big financial burden for these families?
MICHAEL VERNA, AVIATION TRIAL ATTORNEY: No question and I think before we talk about the legal aspects of this, there is the human aspect of it, and my condolences go out to these families. It is one thing to lose a loved in a tragic accident.
It is totally something else if the proof bears out that this was an intentional act by the co-pilot to lose them at the hands of a psychopath. So this is -- you know, I'm as much at disbelief about what happened here as anybody else.
As a legal proposition for claims that families wish to make against Lufthansa and Germanwings, that is all governed by international treaty known as the Montreal Convention and it's also governed by European regulations and it gets rather complicated.
But in short, the carrier is responsible to the families for damages, monetary damages, which of course, does not compensate the family for the loss of a loved one, but monetary damages based on where the case to be filed.
LEMON: Mike, how long does that take? Is that going to take a while? Because now let's get more specifically, the financial damages here, because it could be a husband who was a breadwinner. It could be wife who is a breadwinner, I mean -- I think Lufthansa now is going to start giving them incrementally some money, but still, you know -- VERNA: Well, under the law, and no question. Under the law, both the
European regulations as well as the Montreal convention, they are mandated to make humanitarian payments to help bridge the gap of what is going on now, and the ultimate adjudication of the claims.
And now, we are only two days after the accident and there is all of the leaks as to what people believe happened, and some apparently incontrovertible evidence of what happened.
So it may be that the cases will resolve through the settlement before a full court procedure. The major issue I think for the families from a legal standpoint is where they can file their claim, which courts have jurisdiction.
And under the Montreal Convention, the way it would work out is the majority of these claims would have to be adjudicated against the carrier, anyway, in Germany, and maybe some in Spain.
They are the three families in America that could pursue a claim in the United States' courts because of the jurisdictional rights that they have under the convention, but the measure of the damages and the process will be so different.
In short a claim in the United States courts based on a measure of damages on American law for the wrongful death of loved ones is qualitatively different than the measure of damages in a German court.
LEMON: I have to get Steven in here, and Steven, I want you to weigh in on this and what he said, and also does it make a difference if this is a criminal act as far as compensation?
STEVEN MARKS, AVIATION ATTORNEY, PODHURST ORSECK: Well, let me address the criminal act. I think the criminal act actually probably assists the families. In the last three criminal prosecutions in Europe which was the Sky Guide prosecution of the DHL and the other midway and the Concord crash which resulted in criminal prosecution, and the SAS midair ground crash involved criminal prosecutions and it was jail terms for all of the people involved.
LEMON: But who do you prosecute here? There is no one to prosecute in this case.
MARKS: No, they did prosecute, you would think for example in the SAS crash, you never would have expected on the ground incursion that there would be a criminal prosecution, but they prosecuted the airport managers for not having put sufficient markings on the airport.
And the Sky Guide, the controller who left his station, who was not paying attention was criminally prosecuted and served time. Ultimately he was killed by a family member.
And in the Concord case, many, many years away, the U.S. corporations were prosecuted and executives were prosecuted as a result of a faulty tire that was well known and metal strip that was left on the runway.
LEMON: Could someone in Lufthansa be prosecuted for this? MARKS: Well, you saw a prosecutor on TV today, and he wasn't called in just to give comments. So I'm sure they are opening up a possible criminal prosecution. I don't know and I can't guess. It would be speculative if they are actually going to pursue it.
But you asked the question, would it hurt or help the families, the bottom line I think is it will help the families if this becomes strictly a Montreal case because in most of the European community.
The law permits the court to consider what kind of compensation and whether the families have been taking care by the insurers as mitigation for any criminal sentence. That occurred in Concord. That occurred in SAS and the families could benefit from that.
LEMON: OK.
MARKS: You also asked me about some of the legal aspects. I agree with Michael about the fact that Montreal will govern and the rights of these citizens will very dependent upon the jurisdiction. Spain is not a bad jurisdiction. Germany happens to be a very poor jurisdiction for recovery.
LEMON: All right, that's going to have to be the final word. Thank you, Steven Marks. Thank you, Michael Verna. Appreciate both of you, Gentlemen. Up next, the experts are here to answer your questions using the #germanwingsqs. We'll be right back.
[23:35:14]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:39:12]
LEMON: And now to try to get some answers to your questions, our experts are here to answer them about Flight 9525 and the data showing that the autopilot was reprogrammed by someone inside the cockpit to crash that plane using #germanwingsqs. You can weigh in as well.
So back with me now, Alan Diehl, Dan Duke, Matthew Wald, Jim Hall, Juliette Kayyem and David Soucie. First one goes to David, David, OK, this one is -- to Dan.
Dan, this is from Gavin, and he says, "Is there no air checking in the A320's autopilot software for setting altitudes below normal cruising parameters? So why would the plane's autopilot system allow that low of an altitude setting?
DUKE: Well, there is no error that you set an altitude that you plan to go to and that is the first parameter is to set the one that you are going to stop at. That isn't an error so you would need to be able to land, so you need to get the airplane down to the ground.
LEMON: OK, All right, Juliette Kayyem --
DUKE: So there is no error checking at all. [23:40:13] LEMON: This is a question from Angelo. Angelo says why isn't he a terrorist, regardless of religion, murdering a 144 people should be considered an act of terror. Media these days. Do you consider this an act of terror?
KAYYEM: No. There is just no evidence that it is an act of terror. So you know, we tend to throw away around the term terrorism. It has a meaning, which is someone does this for an ideological purpose for political gain.
There is nothing Germany or France can do in response to this. They had a mass murderer. This is what it is, and there is no evidence otherwise. So I'd like to preserve the word terrorism for the real thing because if you throw it around, it means nothing after a while.
LEMON: OK, this question is from Tao or Teo, I'm not sure how he pronounced it. It says this is another one to David Soucie, is it possible someone lured the captain out of the cockpit? The investigators are looking for the possibility of an accomplice?
SOUCIE: Well, this has been discussed. In fact, it's possible that he poisoned them or put ipecac in his coffee or something like that to where he had to remove himself or excuse himself from the cockpit. So yes, that is possible.
LEMON: All right, Jim Hall, Craig would like to know, he says will they change flight procedures with three pilots on board? That's a question. Another pilot on board, would that change anything?
HALL: Well, I think it would, and of course, if you are my age you remember when all aircraft had three pilots aboard, but for economic reasons, I don't see the aviation industry embracing that.
LEMON: OK, Matthew, this is another good question that says, why don't you use the enhanced technology to control the airplanes from ground control centers to prevent such dramatic crashes?
WALD: Well, you would introduce another possible source of error although it goes back to the question before was that an error of programming the autopilot. You could set up the autopilot to refuse commands like that, but it's a big philosophical discussion.
LEMON: OK, Alan, this is from Kristina says, "Pilot is a stressful job, shouldn't there be ongoing psyche evaluation of ability to cope with job-related stress," Alan?
DIEHL: Well, they do have the ability to go in and turn themselves in if they become overstressed due to job pressures or to the family pressures, et cetera, so those do exist. He apparently didn't avail himself of these counter measures.
LEMON: OK, I want to ask this one, this is going to go for David Soucie, this is from -- someone sent this directly to me. It's from Maryann. She says I'm just curious why none of the passengers turned on the cell phones and call family members when they must have seen the pilot banging at the door? You have to have service. SOUCIE: Well, you have to have service, and typically, you have to be within 20 to 25 miles to get service. So in this area it is just too remote. The 32 miles was the closest airport and that is not a highly populated airport.
LEMON: Let's go back to the financial concern of having three pilots. Would that really make that much of a different do you think? Because I do remember the old days, and if you look at the old movies, you'll see the three pilots --
KAYYEM: With all of them smoking, right? That is how old we all are.
SOUCIE: When I used to ride as an observer, as FAA inspector, who evaluates what's going on in the cockpit, you would sit in the jump seat, there is a third seat there. It is not very comfortable in most airplanes, but it is there.
And when I'm there, I can see how -- not only am I blocking the door, but I can see how it could make a big difference to have three people in the cockpit.
LEMON: And what about air marshals on flights because we have air marshals on flights here?
KAYYEM: Not all of them. They are based on risk assessments about flights that might be vulnerable or people that might be on the various watch list that there is not universal air marshal coverage, and not even clear it would have worked in this instance.
LEMON: All right, standby, everyon. Our experts will get to more of your questions. Make sure you use the #germanwingsqs.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:47:57]
LEMON: Back now taking your questions about the crash of Flight 9525, I'm back with my team of experts. OK, Dan, this is a question from you, and it is pretty controversial, we have been talking about the cameras in the cockpit, and this is from Pete. "People are asking why no cameras in the cockpits. The reason why pilots don't want it is because they take turns sleeping" -- Dan?
DUKE: Well -- well, I don't think that is why nobody wants the camera in a cockpit. I think people are used to the cameras. I think we are used to the police officers wearing body cameras. That is because they can't carry a flight data recorder and a voice recorder around in the pocket.
I was in a simulator for you guys on a special, and we needed five cameras to attempt to show what the cockpit looked like so I'm not sure how many cockpits are enough, how many are too many --
LEMON: Yes, I think, though, I mean, that was so we get TV quality, I think if you put in a camera, right that is a big -- DUKE: Are you going to look at my face or are you going to look at
the instruments or the hands? That is a big place, and it is hard to do.
SOUCIE: That is right. We are talking about spending $1 billion to put cameras in the fleets so you are going to be spending $1 billion, and you have to ask a question like what are you going to take a picture of, and it does not make sense. It's a hard sell.
LEMON: OK, All right, you guys say so. This one is for Alan, Alan, this is a question about the relatives of MH-370. She says, "Can we say we are close to what may have happened to MH-370 crash regarding the Germanwings crash?" Is there any evidence pointing to that these are similar or what happened to them -- Alan.
DIEHL: Well, I think the 370 question is still totally open. Obviously, suicide or some kind of a terrorist act or even a murder- suicide on the flight deck is possible, but I don't think until we find the wreckage of 370 we really can make any connections between that and Germanwings.
[23:50:03] LEMON: OK, this is for Matthew L. Wald, and this is from foster. Is flying safer or less safe compared to 10 or the 20 years ago? We are certainly reporting a lot of it, but it is a lot safer, right, Matthew?
WALD: It is a lot safer, but our expectations are ever greater. It used to be in this country, if you lost three or four big planes a year and it was tragic, but that is just the way it was. Now, if you lose one in every three, four, or five years, and it is unacceptable.
LEMON: But in the last year, I think I have covered with you, Matthew, and certainly David and Juliette, at this same place right here, five air disasters.
WALD: The volume of air traffic grows and grows and grows. The number of crashes per million operations declines, but the growth is so fast that you do end up with some spectacular crashes of some very big airplanes.
LEMON: Is this -- can we expect this rate to continue?
KAYYEM: I mean, look, we have zero tolerance when it comes to airplanes, both the legacy of 9/11 and then also our hopes that, you know, this system is going to work perfectly, but if you actually compare it to any other mode of transportation, if you were going to send your kid somewhere, you would still put them on the airplane. I know, I know, I know, that you know, because the consequences of it going wrong are so catastrophic.
LEMON: No, no. I understand what you're saying and I get it, but there is just something that makes me feel better that my feet are on the ground -- in an automobile.
WALD: Don, it is safer than staying home. If you stay home, your house could burn down with you in it. You could have a heart attack and nobody there with a defibrillator there. Per hour you spend, you are safer in the air.
LEMON: OK, All right --
WALD: David, that is right.
LEMON: Go ahead. That was Matthew.
WALD: I was going to Al Diehl. David is certainly right. It is the safest way to go and suicide-induced death in aircraft is extremely low.
LEMON: Yes, that was Matthew Wald saying that, by the way. OK, so here is David. This is for David.
SOUCIE: I will see if I can be right.
LEMON: Adelaide said has this revelation ruled out the possibility that a mechanical failure or perhaps human error may have caused this?
SOUCIE: You know, it does in some respects, but I always have this nagging thing in the back of my head and that is when you set a descent which is what the chancellor said is that he set it in or the prosecutor sets it in, and you look at the glide path as we are seeing it.
And this is showing it straight that is how it should be, but when you put the data there, it is not straight. There is movement in that descent. There is something going on. Now that could be explained by the fact that he could have been messing with the controls or playing with the speed, who knows?
But it is just in my head if it is as clean as that I will sit it to zero, and then breathe normally and let it crash into the ground, there is a little question, and maybe 1 percent or 2 percent is all, but there is a question.
LEMON: And if somebody was in the cockpit to direct him to this, we would know, because we would hear it?
SOUCIE: And there is a lot of other ways in which he would let us know.
LEMON: OK, Jim, Lamar asks, what can be done to prevent this from happening again? Security officers, we talked about air marshals on every flight.
HALL: Well, again, I don't know that there is anything we can do to guarantee that something like this won't happen again. But we can certainly address it, and take steps, and that is why I think having more information with the cameras in the cockpit, possibly looking at a third person in the cockpit.
Almost all of these flights fly with somebody deadheading, a pilot or somebody from the aviation industry, and we know from experience in the United States that so far fortunately that it has been safe. KAYYEM: I mean, you look at the -- it is like any other security system, and we can talk about airplane, trains, and you just want more redundancies, backup systems to create the resiliency. So obviously cameras won't stop everything. A third pilot won't stop everything, but the more things that you put in place to be able to check the system from going wrong the better off you are, that is just security all around.
LEMON: And this is going to be for you, but I don't think we can answer this because I think this is mind boggling, it say, "Why kill 149 other people if you want to die, there are thousands of ways to die yourself." And that is from Gyanendra, and I think she's right, but it is unanswerable question at this point. Thank you very much, all of you. We appreciate it. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:57:52]
LEMON: This week's CNN Hero is 74 years old, but she can still go off-road like a 16-year-old. She uses mountain biking to introduce city kids to a whole new world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have been riding since age 4. I will never forget my father when he let go of my seat, and I was there on my own. That was 70 years ago. A lot of kids have never really left the city. To them everything is concrete. Is everybody excited? I decided to take kids who have never had my kind of experience on these mountain bike rides. Okay, you guys, let e's hit the road.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was not trying at school. I was getting straight Fs and I got expelled. We would go on bike rides and I feel like it clears my mind.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Looking good! I have been doing this for almost 30 years. You bring them where there are no buildings. It is like wow, I didn't know that this exists. And then we have our "Earn a Bike" program where the kids in the community come after school. What is wrong with it?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The chain.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And so the chain is loose?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They learn how the work on the bikes, and learn how to earn bikes and learn job skills.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now I have As and Bs. They are like my guide to a better life.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There is an opportunity to see, yes, I have been able to accomplish what I thought that I couldn't. It is not just biking. We are imparting life lessons.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: To nominate a hero, make sure you go to CNN heroes.com. Thank you so much for joining us. I hope that we answered most of your questions this evening, and we sure had a lot of them.
If you want to tweet us, you can use germanwingqs, and we will answer as many of them as possible. I'm Don Lemon. Thanks for watching. I will see you back here tomorrow night on CNN. Our live coverage continues with George Howell and Natalie Allen, they are in the CNN Center in Atlanta. Good night.
