Narrative:

Our flight called for taxi from gate and was instructed to taxi to runway 28 and hold short of 32. We asked for directions (microphone, echo or bravo to alpha) and were instructed to use microphone to alpha. We were holding short of 32 on alpha for a few mins when we called ground to remind them we were holding short of 32 alpha. Ground replied we would have to hold short because there was traffic on final for runway 28. After a few more mins ground asked if we could accept a departure from alpha. Since we were cleared to 28 and since 28 was the active runway, we assumed the controller was referring to 28. We then replied that we could take a departure from the intersection. We were then cleared for takeoff. To the best of my recollection, the controller never stressed that runway 32 would now be used for departure. Both myself and the copilot assumed runway 28 was the runway we were cleared to take off from. We departed 28 and were instructed to contact departure as normal. About 5 mins after departure, the controller asked which runway we were assigned for departure. This is when the misunderstanding was discovered. There was no conflict with any traffic, and no evasive action needed. I believe this situation occurred because of a lack of precise communication which resulted in 2 different interpretations of the xmissions. The controller was thinking runway 32 was the runway being talked about and we assumed runway 28 was the runway in question. Our interpretation was that we were cleared for takeoff on runway 28 at the 32 intersection from alpha. I feel this misunderstanding resulted in lack of communication and could have been prevented if the controller would have made it clear that runway 32 was now the runway of intended departure. The controller was also working both ground and tower, which I believe contributed to his confusion.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER LTT TKOF FROM WRONG RWY AT SYR. ERROR NOT DISCOVERED UNTIL IN COM WITH DEP CTLR.

Narrative: OUR FLT CALLED FOR TAXI FROM GATE AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO TAXI TO RWY 28 AND HOLD SHORT OF 32. WE ASKED FOR DIRECTIONS (MIKE, ECHO OR BRAVO TO ALPHA) AND WERE INSTRUCTED TO USE MIKE TO ALPHA. WE WERE HOLDING SHORT OF 32 ON ALPHA FOR A FEW MINS WHEN WE CALLED GND TO REMIND THEM WE WERE HOLDING SHORT OF 32 ALPHA. GND REPLIED WE WOULD HAVE TO HOLD SHORT BECAUSE THERE WAS TFC ON FINAL FOR RWY 28. AFTER A FEW MORE MINS GND ASKED IF WE COULD ACCEPT A DEP FROM ALPHA. SINCE WE WERE CLRED TO 28 AND SINCE 28 WAS THE ACTIVE RWY, WE ASSUMED THE CTLR WAS REFERRING TO 28. WE THEN REPLIED THAT WE COULD TAKE A DEP FROM THE INTXN. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR TKOF. TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, THE CTLR NEVER STRESSED THAT RWY 32 WOULD NOW BE USED FOR DEP. BOTH MYSELF AND THE COPLT ASSUMED RWY 28 WAS THE RWY WE WERE CLRED TO TAKE OFF FROM. WE DEPARTED 28 AND WERE INSTRUCTED TO CONTACT DEP AS NORMAL. ABOUT 5 MINS AFTER DEP, THE CTLR ASKED WHICH RWY WE WERE ASSIGNED FOR DEP. THIS IS WHEN THE MISUNDERSTANDING WAS DISCOVERED. THERE WAS NO CONFLICT WITH ANY TFC, AND NO EVASIVE ACTION NEEDED. I BELIEVE THIS SITUATION OCCURRED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF PRECISE COM WHICH RESULTED IN 2 DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE XMISSIONS. THE CTLR WAS THINKING RWY 32 WAS THE RWY BEING TALKED ABOUT AND WE ASSUMED RWY 28 WAS THE RWY IN QUESTION. OUR INTERPRETATION WAS THAT WE WERE CLRED FOR TKOF ON RWY 28 AT THE 32 INTXN FROM ALPHA. I FEEL THIS MISUNDERSTANDING RESULTED IN LACK OF COM AND COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF THE CTLR WOULD HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT RWY 32 WAS NOW THE RWY OF INTENDED DEP. THE CTLR WAS ALSO WORKING BOTH GND AND TWR, WHICH I BELIEVE CONTRIBUTED TO HIS CONFUSION.

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.