Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
all intents and purposes identical to where they thought they were headed
That's what Vette claims in his book, but I am not necessarily convinced. They see land where they expect to see land, according to Vette, and that in his mind translates to a "positive fix."
Consider some interesting comments from the crew which I would guess you have already read:
Mulgrew to passengers 4 min before impact: "I still can't see very much at the moment. I'll keep you informed as soon as I can see something that gives me
a clue to where we are [emphasis added]."
FE 3 min before impact "Where's Erebus in relation to us at the moment?"
Mulgrew 3 min before impact: "Yes- - - no, no, I really don't know." [(this is not a response to the FE's question quoted above)].
Mulgrew 1 min 40 sec before impact "I reckon Bird's through here and Ross Island there. Erebus should be here."
Mulgrew 50 sec before impact "Looks like the edge of Ross Island there."
These remarks no doubt are subject to a wide degree of interpretation, and I would agree with Vette none of them shows anything so blatant as that the crew feels lost or confused. But I can't help thinking they don't convey the sense of "positive fixes" either. Vette calls the view from the aircraft cockpit a "visual counterfeit" of the McMurdo Sound track. But how much so? I would think that any track where there is terrain to your left and to your right would have more than a minute posibility of being taken by a flight crew for what they think should be there. Vette describes walls of clouds rising above them on either side, and clouds and fog below them, obscuring much of the landscape. Given this, I'm wondering if "doesn't contradict what they expect to see" is really the equivalent of a positive identification.