Narrative:

Our aircraft was holding short of runway 33 for departure. We were asked to hold short for traffic. Because we were on the taxiway centerline, we did not have a view of the departure path we would take. Tower advised we were cleared for takeoff, if we could do so without delay. Since we did not need a delay, we were able to accept the clearance. We departed runway 33 without delay, and saw traffic on final for runway 15 (same arrival path as our departure path). Our departure warranted a turn 10 degrees right of the centerline, and we followed that instruction, which appeared to allow the inbound aircraft a normal approach. The inbound aircraft took evasive action to the west, offsetting its final approach course. Our aircraft did appear too close, and I believe that if I had seen the arriving aircraft prior to takeoff, I would not have accepted the takeoff clearance. I believe that if we had held short, the near miss would not have occurred. Our crew was unaware of the proximity of the inbound aircraft. There was no reason stated by the controller for the 'no delay' takeoff, although we assumed it was (due to the radio traffic we had heard during our taxi). It would have been beneficial to have the controller state the distance the approaching aircraft was at. I am unsure of the distance that the aircraft was to us, as I was maneuvering for the departure, and the terrain is mountainous.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NEAR MISS RPTED AND EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN WHEN A TURBOPROP SCHEDULED CARRIER CREW IS CLEARED FOR TKOF AND THEN OBSERVES TFC LNDG OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

Narrative: OUR ACFT WAS HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 33 FOR DEP. WE WERE ASKED TO HOLD SHORT FOR TFC. BECAUSE WE WERE ON THE TXWY CTRLINE, WE DID NOT HAVE A VIEW OF THE DEP PATH WE WOULD TAKE. TWR ADVISED WE WERE CLRED FOR TKOF, IF WE COULD DO SO WITHOUT DELAY. SINCE WE DID NOT NEED A DELAY, WE WERE ABLE TO ACCEPT THE CLRNC. WE DEPARTED RWY 33 WITHOUT DELAY, AND SAW TFC ON FINAL FOR RWY 15 (SAME ARR PATH AS OUR DEP PATH). OUR DEP WARRANTED A TURN 10 DEGS RIGHT OF THE CTRLINE, AND WE FOLLOWED THAT INSTRUCTION, WHICH APPEARED TO ALLOW THE INBND ACFT A NORMAL APCH. THE INBND ACFT TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO THE WEST, OFFSETTING ITS FINAL APCH COURSE. OUR ACFT DID APPEAR TOO CLOSE, AND I BELIEVE THAT IF I HAD SEEN THE ARRIVING ACFT PRIOR TO TKOF, I WOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THE TKOF CLRNC. I BELIEVE THAT IF WE HAD HELD SHORT, THE NEAR MISS WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. OUR CREW WAS UNAWARE OF THE PROXIMITY OF THE INBND ACFT. THERE WAS NO REASON STATED BY THE CTLR FOR THE 'NO DELAY' TKOF, ALTHOUGH WE ASSUMED IT WAS (DUE TO THE RADIO TFC WE HAD HEARD DURING OUR TAXI). IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL TO HAVE THE CTLR STATE THE DISTANCE THE APCHING ACFT WAS AT. I AM UNSURE OF THE DISTANCE THAT THE ACFT WAS TO US, AS I WAS MANEUVERING FOR THE DEP, AND THE TERRAIN IS MOUNTAINOUS.

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.