Narrative:

We were assigned the sjc 6 moony departure, and as we were cleared for takeoff an small aircraft was cleared for takeoff on runway 30R. We were instructed by tower to keep the light twin in sight and make our turnout outside of him. The visibility was good and we had no problem keeping him in sight. Our clearance was to FL230 and the aircraft was light and climbed quickly. The departure we were assigned has a crossing restriction at or below 5000 ft at the sjc 047 degree right. As we made our right turn, I kept the small aircraft in sight as the captain was concerned with keeping our aircraft within 4 NM of the sjc VOR per the SID. We had briefed the entire departure procedure, including the 5000 ft restriction, prior to takeoff. Our navaids were set accordingly and the altitude mode control panel was set at FL230, the altitude to which we had been cleared. As I kept the small aircraft in sight, the captain concentrated on the turn and we passed through the 5000 ft restriction. At 6300 ft, bay departure asked our altitude and reminded us of the restriction. We started to initiate a descent back down to 5000 ft and departure said to disregard and continue climb to FL230. There was no conflict. Later in the flight, we were told to phone bay departure. We did that and were informed of possible violation action to be filed. It is my opinion that although we were above the small aircraft at 5000 ft, turning outside of his aircraft while remaining inside of 4 NM of sjc proved to be a distraction to both pilots. The fact that the aircraft was climbing rapidly lessened the time to realize the 5000 ft restriction. During the phone conversation with bay departure, the controller stated that there had been 10 violations at that point during the past week. If it's such a problem, why not simply issue a clearance to 5000 ft from clearance delivery?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF MLG OVERSHOT CROSSING RESTRICTION ON SJC 6 SID.

Narrative: WE WERE ASSIGNED THE SJC 6 MOONY DEP, AND AS WE WERE CLRED FOR TKOF AN SMA WAS CLRED FOR TKOF ON RWY 30R. WE WERE INSTRUCTED BY TWR TO KEEP THE LIGHT TWIN IN SIGHT AND MAKE OUR TURNOUT OUTSIDE OF HIM. THE VISIBILITY WAS GOOD AND WE HAD NO PROB KEEPING HIM IN SIGHT. OUR CLRNC WAS TO FL230 AND THE ACFT WAS LIGHT AND CLBED QUICKLY. THE DEP WE WERE ASSIGNED HAS A XING RESTRICTION AT OR BELOW 5000 FT AT THE SJC 047 DEG R. AS WE MADE OUR RIGHT TURN, I KEPT THE SMA IN SIGHT AS THE CAPT WAS CONCERNED WITH KEEPING OUR ACFT WITHIN 4 NM OF THE SJC VOR PER THE SID. WE HAD BRIEFED THE ENTIRE DEP PROC, INCLUDING THE 5000 FT RESTRICTION, PRIOR TO TKOF. OUR NAVAIDS WERE SET ACCORDINGLY AND THE ALT MODE CTL PANEL WAS SET AT FL230, THE ALT TO WHICH WE HAD BEEN CLRED. AS I KEPT THE SMA IN SIGHT, THE CAPT CONCENTRATED ON THE TURN AND WE PASSED THROUGH THE 5000 FT RESTRICTION. AT 6300 FT, BAY DEP ASKED OUR ALT AND REMINDED US OF THE RESTRICTION. WE STARTED TO INITIATE A DSCNT BACK DOWN TO 5000 FT AND DEP SAID TO DISREGARD AND CONTINUE CLB TO FL230. THERE WAS NO CONFLICT. LATER IN THE FLT, WE WERE TOLD TO PHONE BAY DEP. WE DID THAT AND WERE INFORMED OF POSSIBLE VIOLATION ACTION TO BE FILED. IT IS MY OPINION THAT ALTHOUGH WE WERE ABOVE THE SMA AT 5000 FT, TURNING OUTSIDE OF HIS ACFT WHILE REMAINING INSIDE OF 4 NM OF SJC PROVED TO BE A DISTR TO BOTH PLTS. THE FACT THAT THE ACFT WAS CLBING RAPIDLY LESSENED THE TIME TO REALIZE THE 5000 FT RESTRICTION. DURING THE PHONE CONVERSATION WITH BAY DEP, THE CTLR STATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN 10 VIOLATIONS AT THAT POINT DURING THE PAST WK. IF IT'S SUCH A PROB, WHY NOT SIMPLY ISSUE A CLRNC TO 5000 FT FROM CLRNC DELIVERY?

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.