Runway incursion at Sunshine Coast
 

Here's an interesting one just posted: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...rt/ao-2023-023

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?

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.

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that that chart was the current ASA chart, only that it was the chart used by the flying school (obviously woefully out of date; Google Earth indicates the works were finished in Oct 2021):
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?

So it wasn't even marked properly?

And why, oh why, did they not extend Twy E all the way to the threshold 13 to avoid the time wasted at the holding point halfway down the runway, waiting for others to backtrack, turn around, and launch?

Good question, Airports aren't designed by pilots, unfortunately. Full-length parallel taxiways are one of the greatest safety enhancements a busy airport could have IMO, Broome, Newman, Ballina (based on reading) being cases in point.

I was thinking of the Manoeuvring Map: It appears as if CASA/ASA don't know where the holding point is either!! :ugh:

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5ba1cddb0e.jpg

The Report goes on to say: "The pilot was familiar with the runway configurations at Sunshine Coast Airport having flown to the airport previously. However, having never used taxiway Foxtrot..." ...so it sounds to me like you really need to do your research before flying in to some of these places - but then I don't really understand why the 737 was asked to go around either, unless that was linked to some doubt in the mind of the Tower Controller about the student's grasp of their situation at that point??

Why on earth don't we have the same markings as the USA and increasingly europe?

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0841910280.jpg

The fact that they hadn't used F before is irrelevant. They obviously knew where the F holding point was because they taxied there, and held there, as instructed. The problem was when ATC threw a spanner in the works with "remain clear of 31". For example, having held at a HP, do we get a clearance/instruction later cross it when going someplace else such as lining up or crossing a runway? No. We just do what we're told. In this case, Bloggs, who was already stopped holding at the F HP, was told to remain clear of 31. "OK, I'll do that", they think. "Since I'm departing off 31, I'll move forward towards 31". 132 hours, still a student, combined with an ambiguous call from ATC = result.

I doubt Bloggs would have thought of the 31 scenario he was put in: holding at an HP and then being told to "hold short". I certainly wouldn't have. But hopefully, I would have said "err, der, I already am holding short, please explain what you meant". :)​​​​​​​

ICAO markings are used here, are they not? Curiously, those red boxes are called "Mandatory instruction markings" but the MOS says "may" and "should" regarding their use.

There is no need for the CASA chart/diagram to even exist IMO. It shows nothing extra compared to the ERSA diagram and is simply another pathway to incorrect information when not maintained/updated.

Why does FTA so eagerly use the term QFI??

Qualified Flying Instructor, a military term. Unlike the Yank usage of CFI, normally reserved for the lofty position of Chief Flying Instructor, but over there it is given to the lowly creatures known as certified flying instructors.

QFI used to be the higher of two grades of instructor under the old UK CAA system
You started off as an AFI, Assistant Flying Instructor, roughly equivalent to a Grade 3, then when you had the hours and the CFI said you were ready you could upgrade to QFI Qualified Flying Instructor.

The pilot held a student pilot licence. They commenced training on 12 September 2022 at Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport. At the time of the occurrence, they had a total flying experience of 132.5 hours

There is no such thing as a Student Pilot Licence, hasn't been since Part 61 came in.

132.5 hours and still not licenced? Is this what the future holds?

Good points, Clare! Bloggs may have been a student pilot, but there is no such thing as a student pilot licence any more. And 132.5 hours in the logbook and still a student?

A full time course but averaging just under four hours a week of flying.
I wonder how much debt this poor stude was in :(

An integrated course does not require the candidate to have an RPL/PPL prior to sitting for the CPL test.

Over the years since you and I were often on the same UHF frequency Bloggsy, I've grown tired of trying to convince airport designers worldwide to listen to operational folk before the concrete pours begin and batching plants are erected.
Sunny Coast is a classic example - I still have the emails and briefing docs on file.
The other issue is that, when the bleeding obvious becomes an operational and safety necessity, there is operational disruption while the "fix" is effected. Putting it there in the first place would have been cheaper and completed while there were not operations to disrupt. .

All controllers and most pilots can point to a taxiway that is useless and a place where there should be a taxiway at airports they frequent.

Gne.

Training under a Part 142 only requires 150 hours total time and the first time you do a test is for the CPL if you wish. So 132.5 hours is not out of the ordinary with no licence. Some schools do like to get a student to do a PPL to get them used to the testing environment and also so they can sign the daily, carry pax etc.

But wouldn't the candidate want a licence to be able to go flying for fun in their own time, along the way? Or are they 'not allowed to'?

LB, under the regimes spoken of above the candidate is told that, sure, they could get a license along the way if they wish to.. but it will cost them $$$ for the exam and flight test that would be "better spent" on achieving their goals. :rolleyes:

Most flights schools I know of encourage their students to get their hours up doing circuits, but given FTA don't appear to be based anywhere close to Sunny Coast, I wonder if these guys are encouraged to get their hours up flying interstate!! If so, poor buggers..that's certainly one way to get hours on the flight switch but not much use for proficiency

They have a base at Wellcamp which is about a 45-60 minute flight away from Sunny Coast

All that aside, there is still no such thing as a Student Pilot Licence.
Nor is there any such thing as a QFI.
So what other inaccuracies are there in the report?
From my experience of the ATSB they make things up as they go along.