If I were a FE'er, I wouldn't waste so much time prattling on about how one specific flight or another wouldn't offer evidence that Antarctica is a continent because its flight path involves figure-eights or whatever; I would say, "even if it allegedly crossed from one coast to the opposite coast, here is what actually happens..." because obviously such flights have occurred and do occur, even if this particular commercial flight happens to provide a convenient "inconclusive" aspect for you to focus on. Or do you actually believe that no one has ever so much as
claimed to have crossed Antarctica? Ski? Tausami? Tom?
And it's not just planes, of course. Ships circumnavigate Antarctica itself, as discussed in
this thread. The pitiful answer offered by Tom Bishop there was that all navigation equipment was faulty or ignored, and that the ship simply followed the ice wall a distance equal to the "alleged" circumference of Antarctica, then went back north.
There are several problems with this claim. Try to picture this on your map. The ship disembarks from Australia and heads south to the ice wall. No matter how far along the ice wall the ship travels, heading back north (that is, in the direction of the north pole, the center of your map) will not take them back to the same point in Australia. The only way the ship would return to the same point is if the ship disembarked from the north pole itself. Even then, any landmarks visible during the north-to-south trip would inexplicably appear to have moved a significant distance to the east or west during the south-to-north return trip.
Come to think of it, this is a way you can prove your ice wall theory. If a ship "circles" Antarctica enough times (in actuality (according to FET), follows the ice wall), so that the total travel distance equals half of the inner circumference of the ice wall, then heading back north will take the ship to the shores of South America, rather than back to Australia as the ignorant RE helmsman would expect. Correct?