Ampan.
Let's try again, this I have printed in this thread at least once and probably more times.
Fom John King's publication.
"The actual track and distance chart supplied to flight crews was a subject of considerable debate during the enquiry. Pilots giving evidence on behalf of NZALPA insisted it was exhibit 164, but Joe Lawson in his evidence said that three copies of Annex J of the Chippendale report, which clearly showed the Southern waypoint as being Williams Field had been placed in the aircraft documents. From the evidence given none of the pilots recalled definitely using either Exhibit 164 or Annex J. Also found in the wreckage was Exhibit 78. a copy of the NV90 computer printout structured as a skeleton flight plan with waypoints names, tracks and distances. BUT THAT WAS NEVER ELABORATED UPON DURING THE ENQUIRY.
Weighing the evidence presented before him- and the credibility of the witnesses themselves-Peter Mahon concluded that exhibit 164 was the track and distance chart supplied to Antarctic crews, and Annex J was something the airline would rather had been found in the cockpit of the wrecked DC10. THAT CONCLUSION WAS ONE OF MANY LATER DISMISSED AT BOTH THE COURT OF APPEAL AND PRIVY COUNCIL HEARINGS.
Surely that covers whether a positive position could be established by just reading the AINS position readout and transferring it onto a chart before any descent was contemplated.
To have position confirmed by radar before descent would also have been very desirable, even if, as Desert Dingo keeps on about, not required, in Mahon's view.
But it still gets back to the fact. who wants to go sightseeing at 250 kts plus, with a reported cloud base of 2,000ft???. and so reported by trained observers on the ground at FLT901's intended destination???. Who also recommended going elsewhere??