Narrative:

While departing teb runway 24 via the teb 5 departure and climbing through 1000 ft MSL, we were handed off to new york departure. Departure assigned a heading of 260 degrees, which differed from the 285 degree heading on the SID. The SID requires a climb to 1500 ft AGL, then a turn to 285 degree heading, maintain 1500 ft MSL until passing the teb 4.5 DME, then climb to 2000 ft MSL. I was distraction by the different heading assignment in the turn and climbed to 2000 ft MSL at approximately 3.5 DME teb. ATC queried our altitude, and we immediately corrected to 1500 ft MSL. The flight continued normally from that point. That departure requires very close monitoring in a jet because of the high speeds and short times involved before the leveloff and turn. I allowed myself to get distraction by the different heading. Copilot was on the radio with ATC and couldn't warn me in time. Fatigue was a contributing factor as was the aircraft model. Because of a mechanical we were flying an older citation I, that we hadn't flown in a few months, and the workload and instrumentation is very different from the citation ii we normally fly.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CITATION I FLC BECOME CONFUSED WHEN N90 DEP CTLR INSTRUCTS PLT TO TURN TO A HDG THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SID HDG.

Narrative: WHILE DEPARTING TEB RWY 24 VIA THE TEB 5 DEP AND CLBING THROUGH 1000 FT MSL, WE WERE HANDED OFF TO NEW YORK DEP. DEP ASSIGNED A HDG OF 260 DEGS, WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE 285 DEG HDG ON THE SID. THE SID REQUIRES A CLB TO 1500 FT AGL, THEN A TURN TO 285 DEG HDG, MAINTAIN 1500 FT MSL UNTIL PASSING THE TEB 4.5 DME, THEN CLB TO 2000 FT MSL. I WAS DISTR BY THE DIFFERENT HDG ASSIGNMENT IN THE TURN AND CLBED TO 2000 FT MSL AT APPROX 3.5 DME TEB. ATC QUERIED OUR ALT, AND WE IMMEDIATELY CORRECTED TO 1500 FT MSL. THE FLT CONTINUED NORMALLY FROM THAT POINT. THAT DEP REQUIRES VERY CLOSE MONITORING IN A JET BECAUSE OF THE HIGH SPDS AND SHORT TIMES INVOLVED BEFORE THE LEVELOFF AND TURN. I ALLOWED MYSELF TO GET DISTR BY THE DIFFERENT HDG. COPLT WAS ON THE RADIO WITH ATC AND COULDN'T WARN ME IN TIME. FATIGUE WAS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR AS WAS THE ACFT MODEL. BECAUSE OF A MECHANICAL WE WERE FLYING AN OLDER CITATION I, THAT WE HADN'T FLOWN IN A FEW MONTHS, AND THE WORKLOAD AND INSTRUMENTATION IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE CITATION II WE NORMALLY FLY.

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.