Entirely understandable. ATC should not have confused the issue by saying "hold short runway 31" when the student was already doing so.
As for the 737, they would be crossing the threshold at a published eye height of 69ft on a vis app (main wheels around 45ft), so they wouldn't have hit the lighty even if they had continued the approach.
Originally Posted by PiperC
How is it possible to do a major upgrade to the runway and taxiway at a major regional airport and for Airservices to screw up the paperwork so royally?
I see no indication that that chart was the current ASA chart, only that it was the chart used by the flying school (obviously woefully out of date; Google Earth indicates the works were finished in Oct 2021):
The information relating to the runways and taxiways contained a graphic of the runway and taxiways at Sunshine Coast Airport (Figure 8) prior to the runway extension and taxiway Foxtrot completion in 2021. The map showed only 2 runway holding points: A1 and A2.
Figure 8: Sunshine Coast Airport map used in the operator airport briefing for students.
If you're referring to the
CASA chart then yes, I agree it's inaccurate, but I doubt it would have misled the student because the shows 31 starting
at F, so the stud wouldn't have moved from F when they were told to hold short of 31. AS it was, it appears he
did know where 31 was because they moved toward it when told to hold short.
Sounds/reads like non-compliance with
current rules/practices; was there any need to do most of that extra stuff?