Narrative:

Cleared for takeoff runway 16R, visibility 1/4 mi. CAT C takeoff minimums on runway 16R were: standard 1 mi, adequate visibility reference 1/4 mi. All lighting system and ILS up and working, so we took off. Later we saw fdc NOTAMS said runway 16R minimums for takeoff were 2800 ft, 2 mi or standard. We were then unsure of which applied. In reviewing the IFR departure procedure on the fdc's prior to takeoff, we overlooked the different takeoff minimums from reno 10-9A page because the IFR departure procedure on both documents was identical. I believe a new 10-9 page should be issued immediately for such important data as this. Supplemental information from acn 418771: note in fdc NOTAMS unclr as to use of standard. Callback conversation with reporter acn 481771 revealed the following information: reporter stated that he did not realize that the fi/T indication after the airport identify meant that it was temporary only, and would not be published on the departure chart criteria unless it becomes permanent. Also, he did not realize that the reference to 'or standard' referred to operations not required to comply with part 97 of the FARS. He further stated that the aircraft operated was a B737-300 with an EFIS display.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF A B737-300 TOOK OFF BELOW TKOF WX MINIMUMS FOR THEIR PART 121 OPS. THE FLC NOTED POST TKOF THAT A FDC NOTAM REQUIRED HIGHER THAN CHART PUBLISHED MINIMUMS THAN THAT IN WHICH THEY DEPARTED. ALSO, THEY DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE PHRASEOLOGY OF 'OR STANDARD' WAS MEANT FOR OPERATORS NOT AFFECTED BY PART 97 TKOF MINIMUMS OR FERRY TEST FLTS FOR THEIR OWN COMPANY.

Narrative: CLRED FOR TKOF RWY 16R, VISIBILITY 1/4 MI. CAT C TKOF MINIMUMS ON RWY 16R WERE: STANDARD 1 MI, ADEQUATE VISIBILITY REF 1/4 MI. ALL LIGHTING SYS AND ILS UP AND WORKING, SO WE TOOK OFF. LATER WE SAW FDC NOTAMS SAID RWY 16R MINIMUMS FOR TKOF WERE 2800 FT, 2 MI OR STANDARD. WE WERE THEN UNSURE OF WHICH APPLIED. IN REVIEWING THE IFR DEP PROC ON THE FDC'S PRIOR TO TKOF, WE OVERLOOKED THE DIFFERENT TKOF MINIMUMS FROM RENO 10-9A PAGE BECAUSE THE IFR DEP PROC ON BOTH DOCUMENTS WAS IDENTICAL. I BELIEVE A NEW 10-9 PAGE SHOULD BE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY FOR SUCH IMPORTANT DATA AS THIS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 418771: NOTE IN FDC NOTAMS UNCLR AS TO USE OF STANDARD. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR ACN 481771 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE FI/T INDICATION AFTER THE ARPT IDENT MEANT THAT IT WAS TEMPORARY ONLY, AND WOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED ON THE DEP CHART CRITERIA UNLESS IT BECOMES PERMANENT. ALSO, HE DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE REF TO 'OR STANDARD' REFERRED TO OPS NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PART 97 OF THE FARS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ACFT OPERATED WAS A B737-300 WITH AN EFIS DISPLAY.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.