Narrative:

We were originally cleared for the teb 5 departure departing runway 1. We had briefed this departure. As we taxied out the wind changed and we were cleared for runway 24. We briefed for the changes in the teb 5 departure using runway 24 included the fact that one pilot remain in 'green' for the DME required for the climb from 1500 ft to 2000 ft after 4.5 mi off the teb VOR which was tuned on both sides. We took off and I was PF. I leveled at 1500 ft MSL according to the SID; and was looking for the 4.5 DME and could not find it on the tubes. Adding to the confusion was that this is a new aircraft with totally different EFIS screens. Since I could not see the DME I flew for a period of time estimating that we had reached 4.5 mi and initiated the climb to 2000 ft. I not yet quite reached the 4.5 DME position for the climb. The controllers then inquired about our altitude issuing a traffic report. There was no traffic conflict. ATC nicely advised us of our mistake and we proceeded. In reviewing the situation I feel that the runway change and the rebrief to runway 24 added to the issue. While radios were set; and I specifically located the DME readout position on the EFIS screen. During the takeoff; I had trouble finding the DME readout. I should have spent more time orienting myself on the DME position than I did. The new 4 screen EFIS tubes have a lot more information and are quite cluttered until you get used to them. A new aircraft requires vigilance; and apparently more preparation than I gave it.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GULFSTREAM G550 FLT CREW HAS AN ALT DEV DURING THE TEB 5 DEP.

Narrative: WE WERE ORIGINALLY CLRED FOR THE TEB 5 DEP DEPARTING RWY 1. WE HAD BRIEFED THIS DEP. AS WE TAXIED OUT THE WIND CHANGED AND WE WERE CLRED FOR RWY 24. WE BRIEFED FOR THE CHANGES IN THE TEB 5 DEP USING RWY 24 INCLUDED THE FACT THAT ONE PLT REMAIN IN 'GREEN' FOR THE DME REQUIRED FOR THE CLB FROM 1500 FT TO 2000 FT AFTER 4.5 MI OFF THE TEB VOR WHICH WAS TUNED ON BOTH SIDES. WE TOOK OFF AND I WAS PF. I LEVELED AT 1500 FT MSL ACCORDING TO THE SID; AND WAS LOOKING FOR THE 4.5 DME AND COULD NOT FIND IT ON THE TUBES. ADDING TO THE CONFUSION WAS THAT THIS IS A NEW ACFT WITH TOTALLY DIFFERENT EFIS SCREENS. SINCE I COULD NOT SEE THE DME I FLEW FOR A PERIOD OF TIME ESTIMATING THAT WE HAD REACHED 4.5 MI AND INITIATED THE CLB TO 2000 FT. I NOT YET QUITE REACHED THE 4.5 DME POSITION FOR THE CLB. THE CTLRS THEN INQUIRED ABOUT OUR ALT ISSUING A TFC RPT. THERE WAS NO TFC CONFLICT. ATC NICELY ADVISED US OF OUR MISTAKE AND WE PROCEEDED. IN REVIEWING THE SITUATION I FEEL THAT THE RWY CHANGE AND THE REBRIEF TO RWY 24 ADDED TO THE ISSUE. WHILE RADIOS WERE SET; AND I SPECIFICALLY LOCATED THE DME READOUT POSITION ON THE EFIS SCREEN. DURING THE TAKEOFF; I HAD TROUBLE FINDING THE DME READOUT. I SHOULD HAVE SPENT MORE TIME ORIENTING MYSELF ON THE DME POSITION THAN I DID. THE NEW 4 SCREEN EFIS TUBES HAVE A LOT MORE INFO AND ARE QUITE CLUTTERED UNTIL YOU GET USED TO THEM. A NEW ACFT REQUIRES VIGILANCE; AND APPARENTLY MORE PREPARATION THAN I GAVE IT.

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