Narrative:

I was acting as first officer on this leg. The captain and I had loaded the fp including the SID off of runway 24. We had briefed the takeoff and departure procedure including the 1500 ft leveloff) and reviewed it in the FMS. After takeoff as we climbed through 800 ft the captain started a right turn. I told him we had to climb runway heading to 1500 ft prior to turning to 280. The captain had elected not to engage the FD or autoplt as we climbed through 400 ft (afm restr; no FD or autoplt below 400FT); and hand fly the departure procedure. As we climbed through approximately 1200 ft we were told to contact departure. After checking in with departure I noticed we were climbing through 1800 ft (the afcs altitude 'window' was set at 1500 ft). I immediately pushed on the yoke and told the captain we had to leveloff at 1500 ft until 4.5 DME from teb; which we did. The departure controller also advised us of our overshoot. I am not aware of any traffic conflict. The captain and I discussed the incident later. He is much more familiar with operating at teb than I. We both had the departure plate on our yokes. For whatever reason he had confused our cleared procedure with the departure off of runway 19; and when I corrected his initial turn at 800 ft I believe I distracted him from the 1500 ft leveloff. This event could have been avoided by either engaging the FD and/or autoplt at 400 ft AGL which is SOP. Often; when weather is good; either of us hand fly the aircraft to develop our skills and scan. I must add that the teb 5 departure procedures; especially off of runway 19 and runway 24; can be described as pushing the envelope of 'reasonable' for high performance jet aircraft. The surface winds at the time were calm; why were they not using runway 01 for departures? (I am well aware of the traffic problems with newark!)

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FALCON 900 FLT CREW FAILS TO ABIDE WITH TRACK AND ALT RESTRS OF TEB SID FROM RWY 24 AT TEB.

Narrative: I WAS ACTING AS FO ON THIS LEG. THE CAPT AND I HAD LOADED THE FP INCLUDING THE SID OFF OF RWY 24. WE HAD BRIEFED THE TAKEOFF AND DEP PROC INCLUDING THE 1500 FT LEVELOFF) AND REVIEWED IT IN THE FMS. AFTER TAKEOFF AS WE CLBED THROUGH 800 FT THE CAPT STARTED A R TURN. I TOLD HIM WE HAD TO CLB RWY HDG TO 1500 FT PRIOR TO TURNING TO 280. THE CAPT HAD ELECTED NOT TO ENGAGE THE FD OR AUTOPLT AS WE CLBED THROUGH 400 FT (AFM RESTR; NO FD OR AUTOPLT BELOW 400FT); AND HAND FLY THE DEP PROC. AS WE CLBED THROUGH APPROX 1200 FT WE WERE TOLD TO CONTACT DEP. AFTER CHKING IN WITH DEP I NOTICED WE WERE CLBING THROUGH 1800 FT (THE AFCS ALT 'WINDOW' WAS SET AT 1500 FT). I IMMEDIATELY PUSHED ON THE YOKE AND TOLD THE CAPT WE HAD TO LEVELOFF AT 1500 FT UNTIL 4.5 DME FROM TEB; WHICH WE DID. THE DEP CTLR ALSO ADVISED US OF OUR OVERSHOOT. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY TFC CONFLICT. THE CAPT AND I DISCUSSED THE INCIDENT LATER. HE IS MUCH MORE FAMILIAR WITH OPERATING AT TEB THAN I. WE BOTH HAD THE DEP PLATE ON OUR YOKES. FOR WHATEVER REASON HE HAD CONFUSED OUR CLEARED PROC WITH THE DEP OFF OF RWY 19; AND WHEN I CORRECTED HIS INITIAL TURN AT 800 FT I BELIEVE I DISTRACTED HIM FROM THE 1500 FT LEVELOFF. THIS EVENT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY EITHER ENGAGING THE FD AND/OR AUTOPLT AT 400 FT AGL WHICH IS SOP. OFTEN; WHEN WEATHER IS GOOD; EITHER OF US HAND FLY THE ACFT TO DEVELOP OUR SKILLS AND SCAN. I MUST ADD THAT THE TEB 5 DEP PROCS; ESPECIALLY OFF OF RWY 19 AND RWY 24; CAN BE DESCRIBED AS PUSHING THE ENVELOPE OF 'REASONABLE' FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE JET ACFT. THE SURFACE WINDS AT THE TIME WERE CALM; WHY WERE THEY NOT USING RWY 01 FOR DEPS? (I AM WELL AWARE OF THE TFC PROBLEMS WITH NEWARK!)

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