During a hurried takeoff brief of the lmt kingsley 5 departure; the first officer incorrectly stated...

Narrative:

Prior to departure the captain and I discussed the kingsley 5 departure out of lmt. I read out the initial heading instructions as; heading 140 (runway heading) -then- heading 320 and on course as assigned. This is what we flew on departure; initiating the turn after climbing a couple thousand feet. The climb was normal there was never an issue with terrain clearance or cause for concern on a VFR morning. On a heading of 320 and going through about 8;000 ft. The controller asked. 'Are you on course?' to which I replied affirmative. The controller then stated that the departure calls for a heading of 140. On reviewing the chart I saw that the departure states heading 140 -or- as assigned by ATC heading 320 and on course. And I realized that we had turned on course which is normally assigned without a clearance. The controller never said anything else to follow up and handed us off a short time later.[I believe the cause was] lack of precise reading of the departure procedure and clear communication and verification about the departure. Changed planned departure runway due to runway closure added to workload. I was late switching to departure being involved in configuring to climb. Normally we would have been cleared for the turn on course right away barring traffic issues on the initial contact. Reiterate need to be vigilant and methodical.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: During a hurried takeoff brief of the LMT KINGSLEY 5 departure; the First Officer incorrectly stated 'turn to 320' after takeoff because he misread the textual description following a last minute runway change.

Narrative: Prior to departure the Captain and I discussed the Kingsley 5 departure out of LMT. I read out the initial heading instructions as; heading 140 (runway heading) -THEN- heading 320 and on course as assigned. This is what we flew on departure; initiating the turn after climbing a couple thousand feet. The climb was normal there was never an issue with terrain clearance or cause for concern on a VFR morning. On a heading of 320 and going through about 8;000 FT. The Controller asked. 'Are you on course?' To which I replied affirmative. The Controller then stated that the departure calls for a heading of 140. On reviewing the chart I saw that the departure states heading 140 -OR- as assigned by ATC heading 320 and on course. And I realized that we had turned on course which is normally assigned without a clearance. The Controller never said anything else to follow up and handed us off a short time later.[I believe the cause was] lack of precise reading of the departure procedure and clear communication and verification about the departure. Changed planned departure runway due to runway closure added to workload. I was late switching to Departure being involved in configuring to climb. Normally we would have been cleared for the turn on course right away barring traffic issues on the initial contact. Reiterate need to be vigilant and methodical.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	1102881
Time
Date	201307
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	LMT.Airport
State Reference	OR
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Dawn
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Light Transport Low Wing 2 Turboprop Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Climb
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	First Officer Pilot Not Flying
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Track / Heading All Types

During a hurried takeoff brief of the lmt kingsley 5 departure; the first officer incorrectly stated 'turn to 320' after takeoff because he misread the textual description following a last minute runway change.