USING MINIMUM VISIBILITY REQUIREMENT DATA FOR THE INCORRECT RWY AT ONT RESULTS IN A TKOF BELOW MINIMUM VISIBILITY REQUIREMENT.

Narrative

DURING PREFLT; ATIS VISIBILITY WAS 2 MILES WITH HAZE. AFTER PUSHBACK; TWR CALLED THE VISIBILITY FOR RWY 26R AT 800; 700; 600. I LOOKED AT THE ONT ARPT PAGE AND MISTAKENLY THOUGHT THE RWY 8R CATEGORY C AND D BLOCK WAS FOR RWY 26R. THEREFORE; I THOUGHT WE NEEDED 6;6;6; RVR AND THAT WE WERE LEGAL FOR TKOF ON RWY 26R. THEN; THE CAPT CONFIRMED THAT WE WERE LEGAL; WE CONTACTED DISPATCH AND OBTAINED A TKOF ALTERNATE. NEXT; EVEN THOUGH WE THOUGHT WE WERE LEGAL FOR TKOF EVEN THOUGH I WOULD BE PERFORMING THE TAKEOFF; WE RAN THE TAKEOFF CHKLIST SO THE CAPT COULD USE THE HUD TO BACK ME UP. ABOUT THE TIME WE WERE FINISHING THE CHKLIST; TWR CALLED RWY 26R AT 1200; 700; 2600. WE THEN DEPARTED ONTARIO. HOWEVER; DURING THE CLBOUT; WHILE DISCUSSING TKOF MINIMUMS IN DIFFERENT SCENARIOS WE RE-EXAMINED THE ONTARIO PAGE AND CAUGHT OUR ERROR. I BELIEVE THAT NOT HAVING HAD TO CHK RVR FOR TAKEOFF SINCE LAST FALL CONTRIBUTED TO MY ERROR. ALSO; THE LAYOUT ON THE ARPT PAGE AT ONTARIO WAS SOMEWHAT CONFUSING. THESE TWO FACTORS LED TO MY ERROR. DURING THE ENTIRE SCENARIO; I NEVER FELT LIKE I WAS BEING RUSHED. IN SUMMARY; I BELIEVE MY ERROR WAS DUE TO NOT HAVING EXAMINED AN ARPT PAGE FOR REQUIRED RVR FOR A LONG TIME. I THINK I CAN PREVENT A RECURRENCE BY REVIEWING THE APPLICABLE SECTION OF THE FLT MANUAL.