Narrative:

This flight took off from sps with a closed tower at approximately XA30. The WX was clear and 10+ mi visibility. On preflight; the first officer took our clearance with departure in sps during the wkend when the tower was closed. I was not in the aircraft at the time. The end of the clearance finished with a 'hold for release.' when we reviewed the clearance; there was no mention by the first officer of the 'hold for release' in the clearance. It also was not written on the paper with the clearance. The clearance was given approximately 20-30 mins prior to block-out. After the preflight checks and the passenger boarded; we taxied to runway 17 for departure. Since the frequency was scratchy when I canceled IFR on the ground from the inbound flight; I decided I would climb out VFR and contact departure airborne instead of on the ground. I was unaware of the 'hold for release.' we completed all taxi out checklists and briefs. We made the normal CTAF radio calls and no other aircraft were on the frequency. We took runway 17 for takeoff. We performed the normal climb out. The first officer was flying and I; the captain; was the PNF. When I contacted departure. He was surprised to hear from us and asked if we were VFR. I thought he was asking if we were going to fly to ZZZ1 under VFR flight plan. I replied; 'no; we have an IFR clearance to ZZZ1.' I meant we were on an IFR flight plan and had our clearance to ZZZ1 and not operating VFR to ZZZ1. I intended to pick up radar contact with him at that time to continue en route IFR after a VFR takeoff. There was a cessna in opposite direction on a practice visual approach south of the airport. Through radio communication with ATC; the other aircraft; and TCAS; we were able to maintain VFR and maintain adequate separation vertically and laterally without any evasive action taken. I told departure we were VFR and would stay VFR until we were clear of the conflict. Neither aircraft were in ATC's radar coverage. ATC said we had a deviation and wanted us to contact them on the ground. When I contacted them; I was told they would be filling paperwork with the FAA about the incident. They told me there has been a trend lately with airline crews misreading back clrncs and having deviations occur. They said they wanted to make this known to the company with our example. ATC also seemed to interpretation my answer that we had an 'IFR clearance' to mean I was already IFR. The company policy does not make it mandatory for both pilots to be present when calling for a clearance. It does state that the clearance should be verified with the filed flight plan for routing purposes. We reviewed the clearance but the 'hold for release' was not something I fathomed to question since it was not written on the paper or mentioned in our briefs. If I was present during the time he got the clearance; I would have heard that statement from the controller.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MISCOMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN FLIGHT CREW MEMBERS RESULTED IN UNAUTHORIZED AND UNCOORDINATED IFR DEPARTURE FROM SPS DEVELOPING INTO A TRAFFIC CONFLICT.

Narrative: THIS FLT TOOK OFF FROM SPS WITH A CLOSED TWR AT APPROX XA30. THE WX WAS CLEAR AND 10+ MI VISIBILITY. ON PREFLT; THE FO TOOK OUR CLRNC WITH DEP IN SPS DURING THE WKEND WHEN THE TWR WAS CLOSED. I WAS NOT IN THE ACFT AT THE TIME. THE END OF THE CLRNC FINISHED WITH A 'HOLD FOR RELEASE.' WHEN WE REVIEWED THE CLRNC; THERE WAS NO MENTION BY THE FO OF THE 'HOLD FOR RELEASE' IN THE CLRNC. IT ALSO WAS NOT WRITTEN ON THE PAPER WITH THE CLRNC. THE CLRNC WAS GIVEN APPROX 20-30 MINS PRIOR TO BLOCK-OUT. AFTER THE PREFLT CHKS AND THE PAX BOARDED; WE TAXIED TO RWY 17 FOR DEP. SINCE THE FREQ WAS SCRATCHY WHEN I CANCELED IFR ON THE GND FROM THE INBOUND FLT; I DECIDED I WOULD CLB OUT VFR AND CONTACT DEP AIRBORNE INSTEAD OF ON THE GND. I WAS UNAWARE OF THE 'HOLD FOR RELEASE.' WE COMPLETED ALL TAXI OUT CHKLISTS AND BRIEFS. WE MADE THE NORMAL CTAF RADIO CALLS AND NO OTHER ACFT WERE ON THE FREQ. WE TOOK RWY 17 FOR TKOF. WE PERFORMED THE NORMAL CLBOUT. THE FO WAS FLYING AND I; THE CAPT; WAS THE PNF. WHEN I CONTACTED DEP. HE WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR FROM US AND ASKED IF WE WERE VFR. I THOUGHT HE WAS ASKING IF WE WERE GOING TO FLY TO ZZZ1 UNDER VFR FLT PLAN. I REPLIED; 'NO; WE HAVE AN IFR CLRNC TO ZZZ1.' I MEANT WE WERE ON AN IFR FLT PLAN AND HAD OUR CLRNC TO ZZZ1 AND NOT OPERATING VFR TO ZZZ1. I INTENDED TO PICK UP RADAR CONTACT WITH HIM AT THAT TIME TO CONTINUE ENRTE IFR AFTER A VFR TKOF. THERE WAS A CESSNA IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION ON A PRACTICE VISUAL APCH S OF THE ARPT. THROUGH RADIO COM WITH ATC; THE OTHER ACFT; AND TCAS; WE WERE ABLE TO MAINTAIN VFR AND MAINTAIN ADEQUATE SEPARATION VERTLY AND LATERALLY WITHOUT ANY EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN. I TOLD DEP WE WERE VFR AND WOULD STAY VFR UNTIL WE WERE CLEAR OF THE CONFLICT. NEITHER ACFT WERE IN ATC'S RADAR COVERAGE. ATC SAID WE HAD A DEV AND WANTED US TO CONTACT THEM ON THE GND. WHEN I CONTACTED THEM; I WAS TOLD THEY WOULD BE FILLING PAPERWORK WITH THE FAA ABOUT THE INCIDENT. THEY TOLD ME THERE HAS BEEN A TREND LATELY WITH AIRLINE CREWS MISREADING BACK CLRNCS AND HAVING DEVS OCCUR. THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO MAKE THIS KNOWN TO THE COMPANY WITH OUR EXAMPLE. ATC ALSO SEEMED TO INTERP MY ANSWER THAT WE HAD AN 'IFR CLRNC' TO MEAN I WAS ALREADY IFR. THE COMPANY POLICY DOES NOT MAKE IT MANDATORY FOR BOTH PLTS TO BE PRESENT WHEN CALLING FOR A CLRNC. IT DOES STATE THAT THE CLRNC SHOULD BE VERIFIED WITH THE FILED FLT PLAN FOR ROUTING PURPOSES. WE REVIEWED THE CLRNC BUT THE 'HOLD FOR RELEASE' WAS NOT SOMETHING I FATHOMED TO QUESTION SINCE IT WAS NOT WRITTEN ON THE PAPER OR MENTIONED IN OUR BRIEFS. IF I WAS PRESENT DURING THE TIME HE GOT THE CLRNC; I WOULD HAVE HEARD THAT STATEMENT FROM THE CTLR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.