PLT DISPUTES ACCUSATION OF RWY INCURSION AT SFB DUE TO TXWY R NOT SHOWN AS INTERSECTING RWY 9R/27L ON GOVT ARPT PAGE. ALSO QUESTIONS ADEQUACY OF SIGNAGE DELIMITING ACCESS TO THE NEWLY REOPENED RWY.

Narrative

OUR ACFT WAS CLRED TO TAXI TO RWY 27R VIA TXWY S; TXWY R; HOLD SHORT RWY 36. UPON CLRNC TO CROSS RWY 36; WE TAXIED VIA TXWY S AND TXWY R AND WAS ADVISED TO HOLD AT TXWY C. WE WERE THEN ADVISED OF A POSSIBLE PLTDEV FOR XING RWY 27L WITHOUT CLRNC. ON THE CURRENT GOVT SFB ARPT DIAGRAM; RWY 9R/27L DOES NOT INTERSECT TXWY R; NOR IS IT CLEARLY DEPICTED ON THE GND; AND I AM UNCLR WHETHER OR NOT WE ACTUALLY READ BACK HOLD SHORT RWY 27L TO THE GND CTLR. THE RWY 27L/TXWY R INTXN IS NOT PROPERLY DEPICTED ON THE CURRENT ARPT DIAGRAM CHART. THE CTLR I SPOKE WITH ADVISED ME THAT ANOTHER CREW DID THE EXACT SAME MISTAKE WE DID A FEW MINS LATER. IT IS NOT CLEARLY DEPICTED ON THE GND AS WELL. ALSO; CONFUSION BECAUSE THE RWY RECENTLY REOPENED IS THERE AS WELL. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER ADVISED THE ARPT IS AWARE OF THE FAULTY GOVT CHART AND THE ERROR IS BEING BROADCAST ON THE ATIS. REPORTER ALSO EMPHASIZED THE SIGNS IDENTIFYING THE RWY ARE INAPPROPRIATELY PLACED TO BE READILY OBSERVED BY THE PILOT WHILE MAKING THE TURN FROM TXWY S TO R.