Ampan,
Your post #422,
Obviously, I've been bagging Capt. S. But can anyone out there explain the clear and obvious contradiction in his evidence? He said that he was told by Captain Wilson at the briefing that the nav track went down McMurdo Sound. In the same breath, he said that when overflying the TACAN at McMurdo Station, he noted that he was an unusual distance off-track. Gents: please think about this. If you had been told at the briefing that the nav track went down McMurdo Sound, you would expect to be left of track when over McMurdo Station. So what the f8ck do you have to report? Nothing.
The NZALPA boys out there are always going to have to answer that question one day. It's been hanging around for 30 years.
You also describe this evidence at the end of your post #266
Why, then, was the waypoint not where Captain S expected it be. If the briefing officers did not tell Captain S that the track was over Erebus, and if Captain S believed that the nav track went down McMurdo Sound, then Captain S would have expected the waypoint to be at the end of McMurdo Sound – which is where it was.
So was there anything unusual for Captain S. to report? No – as long as his evidence about the briefing was correct.
I'm honestly a bit surprised that this hasn't really generated much comment on the forum. The way you have pointed it out, it just seems to damn obvious. How is it that this wasn't picked up by the Royal Commission? Or by the press after reading the report? Or by Air NZ's lawyers, etc?
I have watched the video of Captain S giving this evidence (at least the part that they showed) on the "Flight 901: The Erebus Disaster" documentary video several times, and for some reason just overlooked the obvious.
I must be missing something here?
I recall that Stuart Macfarlane made quite a substantial reference to this evidence (and fair enough too) in his "The Erebus Papers" book. Although I don't have it with me right at the moment, I recall that Captain S's affidavit, which I believe he read at the commencement of his testimony, was actually included (hand written but fairly legible) in the book. For memory, there seemed to have been several amendments (words crossed out, etc) made to this affidavit.
Perhaps you can refer to it to see if it sheds any light.