Narrative:

Contacted norcal TRACON by phone on the ground at haf at XA40 on aug/thu/06; requesting our IFR clearance to ZZZ. Received clearance and departed runway 30 departure normal and made routine contact with norcal TRACON. Received clearance. Later was asked to call TRACON when on the ground at ZZZ. After arrival; I complied and was informed that IFR departures were not authority/authorized on runway 30 at haf. Controller stated that there had been no conflicts. Prior to departure I had received a briefing on duats and checked NOTAMS. I had also checked the departure minimums notation in the special takeoff minimums which seemed to indicate that there were no special takeoff requirements for runway 30; only for runway 12. The ambiguity is compounded by the fact that the departure over runway 30 is over the water and has no obstacles; unlike runway 12 which departs into rising terrain. Under the subheading 'departure procedure' there is no indication that runway 30 is not approved for takeoff; it only mentions the procedure for runway 12. Under the subheading 'takeoff minimums' runway 30 is listed with the annotation 'na.' this leads one to believe that either runway is approved for takeoff; but there are special obstacle clearance procedures required for runway 12. The charts should clearly state that IFR departures on runway 30 are not authority/authorized.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PA30 PLT DEPARTS FROM HAF RWY 30 AFTER MISREADING THE ABBREVIATION 'NA' IN THE FAA 'TKOF MINIMUM AND (OBSTACLE) DEP PROCS' BOOK.

Narrative: CONTACTED NORCAL TRACON BY PHONE ON THE GND AT HAF AT XA40 ON AUG/THU/06; REQUESTING OUR IFR CLRNC TO ZZZ. RECEIVED CLRNC AND DEPARTED RWY 30 DEP NORMAL AND MADE ROUTINE CONTACT WITH NORCAL TRACON. RECEIVED CLRNC. LATER WAS ASKED TO CALL TRACON WHEN ON THE GND AT ZZZ. AFTER ARR; I COMPLIED AND WAS INFORMED THAT IFR DEPS WERE NOT AUTH ON RWY 30 AT HAF. CTLR STATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN NO CONFLICTS. PRIOR TO DEP I HAD RECEIVED A BRIEFING ON DUATS AND CHKED NOTAMS. I HAD ALSO CHKED THE DEP MINIMUMS NOTATION IN THE SPECIAL TKOF MINIMUMS WHICH SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT THERE WERE NO SPECIAL TKOF REQUIREMENTS FOR RWY 30; ONLY FOR RWY 12. THE AMBIGUITY IS COMPOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEP OVER RWY 30 IS OVER THE WATER AND HAS NO OBSTACLES; UNLIKE RWY 12 WHICH DEPARTS INTO RISING TERRAIN. UNDER THE SUBHEADING 'DEP PROC' THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT RWY 30 IS NOT APPROVED FOR TKOF; IT ONLY MENTIONS THE PROC FOR RWY 12. UNDER THE SUBHEADING 'TKOF MINIMUMS' RWY 30 IS LISTED WITH THE ANNOTATION 'NA.' THIS LEADS ONE TO BELIEVE THAT EITHER RWY IS APPROVED FOR TKOF; BUT THERE ARE SPECIAL OBSTACLE CLRNC PROCS REQUIRED FOR RWY 12. THE CHARTS SHOULD CLRLY STATE THAT IFR DEPS ON RWY 30 ARE NOT AUTH.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.