Narrative:

Our clearance was the teb 5 departure. Taxiing out in miserable conditions we were assigned runway 24. This is the most noise sensitive runway at teb; and we therefore requested a runway 19 departure. Holding short of runway 19; ATC informed us that while there was no delay off of runway 24; we might be waiting for runway 19. After 10 mins we were told to expect up to 1 hour for a takeoff clearance. Because we had passenger; we decided to ask for a noise 'plot' and accept runway 24. Operations came back with a plot approach; and I informed ATC we wished to switch to runway 24. We were quickly cleared for takeoff. After briefing the teb 5 runway 24 departure; we executed the takeoff. At approximately 500 ft AGL the autoplt was engaged. The power was then reduced to climb EPR; and a climb checklist executed. At approximately 1300 ft we were switched to departure. On contacting the new controller; the first officer stated out of 1500 ft for 2000 ft. The controller replied 'air carrier X you were supposed to stop at 1500 ft. Never mind now; continue to 2000 ft.' realizing the autoplt hadn't captured; I disengaged it; and leveled off by hand. I continued to hand fly the rest of the departure. Before sending us to the next frequency; the controller stated that there most likely would be a pilot deviation. I believe that the primary cause was the last min switch to a different runway while not allowing time for full brief and confirming proper cockpit set up. (The first officer thought the departure went straight to 2000 ft with no level off.) I feel very strongly that the delays at teb on runway 19 are due to politics; not traffic; as the tracks after the turn are both on a heading of 280 degrees with very little horizontal separation. There can't be much difference to overhead traffic inbound to ewr. With a 'voluntary' ban on stage 2 traffic already in place; it isn't hard to imagine an unofficial policy in place to discourage stage 2 operations. One can only hope this is not the case. On a final note; since the controller told us to continue to 2000 ft when we were still within 300 ft of the assigned altitude (1500 ft) I believe that there is a good argument that no violation occurred.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A G4 DEPARTING TEB RWY 24 MISSED THE LEVEL OFF AT 1500 FT. ACFT WAS CLRED TO CLB AFTER DISCUSSION.

Narrative: OUR CLRNC WAS THE TEB 5 DEP. TAXIING OUT IN MISERABLE CONDITIONS WE WERE ASSIGNED RWY 24. THIS IS THE MOST NOISE SENSITIVE RWY AT TEB; AND WE THEREFORE REQUESTED A RWY 19 DEP. HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 19; ATC INFORMED US THAT WHILE THERE WAS NO DELAY OFF OF RWY 24; WE MIGHT BE WAITING FOR RWY 19. AFTER 10 MINS WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT UP TO 1 HR FOR A TAKEOFF CLRNC. BECAUSE WE HAD PAX; WE DECIDED TO ASK FOR A NOISE 'PLOT' AND ACCEPT RWY 24. OPS CAME BACK WITH A PLOT APCH; AND I INFORMED ATC WE WISHED TO SWITCH TO RWY 24. WE WERE QUICKLY CLRED FOR TKOF. AFTER BRIEFING THE TEB 5 RWY 24 DEP; WE EXECUTED THE TKOF. AT APPROX 500 FT AGL THE AUTOPLT WAS ENGAGED. THE PWR WAS THEN REDUCED TO CLB EPR; AND A CLB CHKLIST EXECUTED. AT APPROX 1300 FT WE WERE SWITCHED TO DEP. ON CONTACTING THE NEW CTLR; THE FO STATED OUT OF 1500 FT FOR 2000 FT. THE CTLR REPLIED 'ACR X YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO STOP AT 1500 FT. NEVER MIND NOW; CONTINUE TO 2000 FT.' REALIZING THE AUTOPLT HADN'T CAPTURED; I DISENGAGED IT; AND LEVELED OFF BY HAND. I CONTINUED TO HAND FLY THE REST OF THE DEP. BEFORE SENDING US TO THE NEXT FREQ; THE CTLR STATED THAT THERE MOST LIKELY WOULD BE A PLT DEV. I BELIEVE THAT THE PRIMARY CAUSE WAS THE LAST MIN SWITCH TO A DIFFERENT RWY WHILE NOT ALLOWING TIME FOR FULL BRIEF AND CONFIRMING PROPER COCKPIT SET UP. (THE FO THOUGHT THE DEP WENT STRAIGHT TO 2000 FT WITH NO LEVEL OFF.) I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THE DELAYS AT TEB ON RWY 19 ARE DUE TO POLITICS; NOT TFC; AS THE TRACKS AFTER THE TURN ARE BOTH ON A HEADING OF 280 DEGS WITH VERY LITTLE HORIZONTAL SEPARATION. THERE CAN'T BE MUCH DIFFERENCE TO OVERHEAD TFC INBOUND TO EWR. WITH A 'VOLUNTARY' BAN ON STAGE 2 TFC ALREADY IN PLACE; IT ISN'T HARD TO IMAGINE AN UNOFFICIAL POLICY IN PLACE TO DISCOURAGE STAGE 2 OPS. ONE CAN ONLY HOPE THIS IS NOT THE CASE. ON A FINAL NOTE; SINCE THE CTLR TOLD US TO CONTINUE TO 2000 FT WHEN WE WERE STILL WITHIN 300 FT OF THE ASSIGNED ALT (1500 FT) I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A GOOD ARGUMENT THAT NO VIOLATION OCCURRED.

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.