Narrative:

Prior to engine start, the first officer and I discussed a usd NOTAM concerning the lnsay 2 departure. The NOTAM stated, lnsay 1 departure not authority/authorized on runway 9. I pointed out that we were cleared the lnsay 2 departure. Problem solved we thought. Next we started engines and taxied to runway 9. The first officer, while taxiing, pulled out the NOTAMS again and pointed out on another page that it addressed lnsay 2 departure 'takeoff minimums' not authority/authorized. At this point, we were #2 for takeoff. We discussed this and the takeoff minimums were 300/1 as stated on the chart. Therefore, we looked on runway takeoff minimums which were 300/1 also. Current WX was 60012. Therefore, I felt that since we had better WX than either the published lnsay 2 or the runway takeoff minimums, depending on how one interps the NOTAM, we were good to go. Landing at lax, we discussed it further and since we had made a copy of the NOTAMS, looked at it again. The full reading of the NOTAM was: 'lnsay 2 departure, takeoff minimums: runway 9, not authority/authorized.' 'all other data remains as published.' 'departure route description: takeoff runway 9, not authority/authorized.' 'all other data remains as published.' at this point we felt we had missed 'departure route description' statement. I failed as the captain to not address more fully the first officer's concerns. With engines running and #1 for takeoff, I should have set the parking brake and read the entire NOTAM myself. We focused on the first part of the NOTAM which talked about 'takeoff minimums.' although we feel that it was our error not reading the NOTAM in full, it would be nice to have the NOTAM simply state 'lnsay 2 departures off runway 9 not authority/authorized.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ILLEGAL DEP PROC USED FOR THE LNSAY 2 SID WITH LOWERED TKOF MINIMUMS WHEN A B757 FLT CREW DEPARTS OFF RWY 9 AT SAN, CA.

Narrative: PRIOR TO ENG START, THE FO AND I DISCUSSED A USD NOTAM CONCERNING THE LNSAY 2 DEP. THE NOTAM STATED, LNSAY 1 DEP NOT AUTH ON RWY 9. I POINTED OUT THAT WE WERE CLRED THE LNSAY 2 DEP. PROB SOLVED WE THOUGHT. NEXT WE STARTED ENGS AND TAXIED TO RWY 9. THE FO, WHILE TAXIING, PULLED OUT THE NOTAMS AGAIN AND POINTED OUT ON ANOTHER PAGE THAT IT ADDRESSED LNSAY 2 DEP 'TKOF MINIMUMS' NOT AUTH. AT THIS POINT, WE WERE #2 FOR TKOF. WE DISCUSSED THIS AND THE TKOF MINIMUMS WERE 300/1 AS STATED ON THE CHART. THEREFORE, WE LOOKED ON RWY TKOF MINIMUMS WHICH WERE 300/1 ALSO. CURRENT WX WAS 60012. THEREFORE, I FELT THAT SINCE WE HAD BETTER WX THAN EITHER THE PUBLISHED LNSAY 2 OR THE RWY TKOF MINIMUMS, DEPENDING ON HOW ONE INTERPS THE NOTAM, WE WERE GOOD TO GO. LNDG AT LAX, WE DISCUSSED IT FURTHER AND SINCE WE HAD MADE A COPY OF THE NOTAMS, LOOKED AT IT AGAIN. THE FULL READING OF THE NOTAM WAS: 'LNSAY 2 DEP, TKOF MINIMUMS: RWY 9, NOT AUTH.' 'ALL OTHER DATA REMAINS AS PUBLISHED.' 'DEP RTE DESCRIPTION: TKOF RWY 9, NOT AUTH.' 'ALL OTHER DATA REMAINS AS PUBLISHED.' AT THIS POINT WE FELT WE HAD MISSED 'DEP RTE DESCRIPTION' STATEMENT. I FAILED AS THE CAPT TO NOT ADDRESS MORE FULLY THE FO'S CONCERNS. WITH ENGS RUNNING AND #1 FOR TKOF, I SHOULD HAVE SET THE PARKING BRAKE AND READ THE ENTIRE NOTAM MYSELF. WE FOCUSED ON THE FIRST PART OF THE NOTAM WHICH TALKED ABOUT 'TKOF MINIMUMS.' ALTHOUGH WE FEEL THAT IT WAS OUR ERROR NOT READING THE NOTAM IN FULL, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THE NOTAM SIMPLY STATE 'LNSAY 2 DEPS OFF RWY 9 NOT AUTH.'

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.