FLC OF A B737-300 TOOK OFF BELOW TKOF WX MINIMUMS FOR THEIR PART 121 OPS. THE FLC NOTED POST TKOF THAT A FDC NOTAM REQUIRED HIGHER THAN CHART PUBLISHED MINIMUMS THAN THAT IN WHICH THEY DEPARTED. ALSO; THEY DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE PHRASEOLOGY OF 'OR STANDARD' WAS MEANT FOR OPERATORS NOT AFFECTED BY PART 97 TKOF MINIMUMS OR FERRY TEST FLTS FOR THEIR OWN COMPANY.

Narrative

CLRED FOR TKOF RWY 16R; VISIBILITY 1/4 MI. CAT C TKOF MINIMUMS ON RWY 16R WERE: STANDARD 1 MI; ADEQUATE VISIBILITY REF 1/4 MI. ALL LIGHTING SYS AND ILS UP AND WORKING; SO WE TOOK OFF. LATER WE SAW FDC NOTAMS SAID RWY 16R MINIMUMS FOR TKOF WERE 2800 FT; 2 MI OR STANDARD. WE WERE THEN UNSURE OF WHICH APPLIED. IN REVIEWING THE IFR DEP PROC ON THE FDC'S PRIOR TO TKOF; WE OVERLOOKED THE DIFFERENT TKOF MINIMUMS FROM RENO 10-9A PAGE BECAUSE THE IFR DEP PROC ON BOTH DOCUMENTS WAS IDENTICAL. I BELIEVE A NEW 10-9 PAGE SHOULD BE ISSUED IMMEDIATELY FOR SUCH IMPORTANT DATA AS THIS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 418771: NOTE IN FDC NOTAMS UNCLR AS TO USE OF STANDARD. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR ACN 481771 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE FI/T INDICATION AFTER THE ARPT IDENT MEANT THAT IT WAS TEMPORARY ONLY; AND WOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED ON THE DEP CHART CRITERIA UNLESS IT BECOMES PERMANENT. ALSO; HE DID NOT REALIZE THAT THE REF TO 'OR STANDARD' REFERRED TO OPS NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PART 97 OF THE FARS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ACFT OPERATED WAS A B737-300 WITH AN EFIS DISPLAY.