The crew would consist of qualified professionals that would log data and map-draw as the airship progressed across the Earth. They would include a Zetetic, a scientist, and a surveyor. I do believe the results obtained from their task would be accepted by all in society.
I'm a little bit curious about this team and method as well. Mapping from an airship seems all well and good at first glance, but what advantage does that hold over mapping from the ground? Theoretically you would get the same results for all landmasses from the air as from the ground; the only difference it would make would be the distance between continents, where they do not connect. And of course the trip out to the icewall, but considering the distances involved and the danger to a craft like one of those airships wouldn't it just be better to use a more standard jet?
markjo has already asked about the scientist's expertise, so I can pretty much skip over that one. I would argue that you don't really need a scientist of any discipline present for a mission explicitly dedicated to cartography, but there are certainly other things on the trip worth investigating.
As far as the surveyor goes, this one leaves me a bit confused. Various posters (primarily Theolodite) have expounded the virtues of modern surveying techniques and their accuracy, but this has been almost unanimously rejected by those supporting FET for a variety of reasons. If you would trust the measurements of the surveyor on this mission, why not just accept the thousands of maps already carefully measured and marked by people who are experts in that very same discipline?
Last, the zetetic. I have to admit, I was a little puzzled on this one; I originally thought that zeteticism was just a word used in the FE community that was synonymous with direct observation, so I did a bit of research. The most useful thing I found, I think, was Lord Wilmore's exposition on the subject on these very forums:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48821.0In order to support the conclusions about the discipline that I have come to, first a couple of relevant quotes from that document (quotes not necessarily in order):
-----------------------------------
"I believe that the use of the word "observation" indicates that Rowbotham means something quite different to traditional globularist notion of 'empirical data', which includes photographs, fanciful accounts and all manner of 'evidence' that may not have been observed nor experienced by the person..."
"No speculation or guesswork is involved; instead the synthesis of empiricism and rationalism whereby logic is correctly applied to experiential data leads inevitably to the truth. Moreover, the Zetetic Method specifically advocates the use of deductive logic as opposed to inductive logic."
"In contrast, that Zetetics "[learn] from experience and observation" (Rowbotham 1) implies that they make logical deductions based on data they have themselves experienced or observed, and that there must be a direct connection between the data and the person drawing logical conclusions from it. Otherwise, Zetetics would not be making logical deductions on the basis of "experience and observation", but rather from reported experiences or reported observations. In short, the Zetetic Method requires that logical deduction be based upon direct sensorial evidence."
"Scientists compare empirical data with the previously conjured products of their imaginations, "supposing, instead of inquiring, imagining systems instead of learning from observation and experience the true constitution of things" (Rowbotham 1). In other words, our best guesses are compared with reality, and if there is an apparent correspondence, the theory is approved."
---------------------------------
Now, I by no means intend to turn this into a debate about zeteticism or its merits. It certainly has its uses. What confuses me is the presence of a person on this mission specifically designated as a zetetic. If what I understand is correct, a zetetic is a person who essentially functions as the ultimate skeptic -- if he cannot directly observe something happen, or cannot make a deductive leap from an observation to a conclusion, then he can come to no conclusions.
More specifically, to the context of this mission. A zetetic cannot accept evidence derived by any method which is reported to him by another person. Thus, he could not accept evidence presented by the surveyor showing that an island was in one place rather than another. Considering the zetetic aversion to inductive evidence, he especially could not accept any conclusions drawn by the scientist on board.
So what does that leave, for the proposed mission? We have one crew member who has no function at all with respect to mapping; one who is very good at discovering and describing the shape of the land, but who is doing entirely redundant work if the efforts of his discipline are to be trusted; and one who is unable to accept any data provided by or conclusions drawn by the first two crew members.
The only way I can see something like this being at all useful to the FE community is if every important crew member is a zetetic and also trained in the disciplines of every other crew member in order that they could share data and verify observations. But then, the scientist is out because anybody who accepts inductive evidence as proof, or potential proof of anything cannot be a zetetic. And of course the generic zetetic crew member isn't going to be coming along, since without any other training he cannot perform a useful function to the mission.
So we are left with a one-man crew, the zetetic surveyor. But then, I must ask again -- if his work is to be trusted by the community, why not just accept the compiled works of other experts in his field? If you accept that the techniques of surveying are valid methods for generating maps, then surely his work would be nothing but redundant. Even if he were the greatest surveyor ever to live past or present, at best he would likely find only minor errors in previous mapping efforts; certainly nothing on the scale of redistributing continents to more closely align with FET.
At best, he could provide estimates of the position and extent of the icewall, or what lies beyond its initial boundary. But that just begs another question: if he could accomplish such a thing why hasn't anyone done it previously? We've had the technology to perform long-distance flights in harsh conditions for decades.
To me, it seems that only one of two possible conclusions is possible here. Either the world is a globe, and such surveying missions have been undertaken in the past and confirmed this; or the world is flat but the Conspiracy is so vast and powerful that it has stopped all previous attempts or sequestered their results. There's no need to comment on the first option, but if the second is true then it would appear impossible for anyone outside the Conspiracy to undertake such a mission. If this is the case, then it is also impossible to perform any sort of meaningful zetetic survey of the shape of the world.