It beggars belief that the report wouldn’t actually provide the correct AWIS!
I’d say it’s pretty crucial to the findings and actions. It briefly mentions the correct wind direction but nothing else. Why not?
It’s completely reasonable to assume that since “both” the JQ crew heard and recorded a completely wrong wind direction, there was absolutely no way they could acceptably then rely upon their recorded wind strength either.
Going into a very short strip for a 320, you really want to know the tail wind strength (which they had assumed was a headwind until late final).
So in recognition that they had recorded an incorrect AWIS, it shocks me that “However, they assessed it was safer to continue with the approach due to the other aircraft ... de-conflicted with, and although there was a tailwind, it was assessed as within tolerance.“
Did they eyeball a max tailwind of 10kts versus say, 13kts? Did they disregard their wind direction, but still rely on their wind strength? (Without now knowing the direction). Seems pretty risky for a strip that definitely doesn’t allow for mucking around.
If I know there’s wind blowing there, and other aircraft are using the reciprocal runway, no way I’d be landing a 60T jet into Maroochy without sourcing the correct wind information. Would not be happy if I were to learn I was on that flight.