Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We departed TEB utilizing the Teterboro 8 departure Runway 24. SIC was at the controls in the left seat; pilot not flying and PIC in the right seat. The correct Runway 24 procedure calls for an initial climb to 1;500 FT then a right turn to 280 degrees; upon crossing the 4.5 DME climb and maintain 2;000. However; departure routing briefed was for Runway 19 not 24 the runway we were departing. After takeoff; gear/flap retraction; I looked down at the depicted procedure in the lower right corner of the chart and called out 'at 900 FT start your right turn to 280; (Note: this is Runway 19 procedure NOT the 24 departure routing). My head still down I realized pilot flying was turning slightly left; (he was turning to heading 195 the 19 procedure). I called out' RIGHT Turn 280' which he proceeded to correct for; I also cautioned him on excessive climb rate. Next we heard the Controller caution us about altitude; and stated maintain 1;500 FT; descend immediately; maintain 1;500 FT. My recollection was we were rapidly approaching 1;500; now possibly slightly above. Pilot flying easily complied immediately with Controller's request and instructions which required no unusual control input; beyond a quick level off. We then we tried to determine what that was all about. The Controller questioned our climb schedule. I stated we were complying with the departure procedure. He firmly stated we were way off that and said we should be at 1;500 FT till 4.5 DME. At that very moment I realized the pilot flying was flying the Runway 19 climb schedule not the Runway 24 climb schedule; and we may have busted the 1;500 FT ceiling. It was corrected so fast I never saw altitudes as my eyes were out the window. The Controller admonished us with regard to TEB departure procedures; and we continued on to destination; fully realizing the procedural error we made. There was an aircraft above and to the right; inbound to Newark; (unknown his altitude or distance) I had him in sight off to our right throughout the departure climb; and I couldn't help note that our departure timing put us right in a position for potential conflict with that overhead traffic arriving Newark; why do they do that? 15-20 seconds either side and it would not have been a possibility. One has to wonder if ATC takes that into account when releasing aircraft off TEB. Regardless; I take full responsibility for this conflict. It could have and should have been avoided with a better departure briefing. I feel as much a victim as I do the perpetrator in this situation. The TEB 8 SID has both runway departure instructions and depictions on the same sheet. One side is Runway 19 the other side is Runway 24. Not an uncommon layout. I feel this contributed to our procedural error. If the two runways had their own sheet; then the Runway 19 procedure would not have been in hand; as we were departing Runway 24. Obviously the first error was not recognizing that fact in first place. My suggestion for TEB would be to completely separate the charts for each runway. Not one on one side with the other on the opposite side. This procedural error was partly caused by the fact that the Runway 19 and 24 procedures are on the same page. It's too easy to turn the page over; drop the chart and pick it up on the wrong side; only to then look at the lower right hand corner as I did follow the wrong depiction. My experience operating at TEB spans many years; dozens of departures. I've often wondered why so many departure errors seem to occur. This situation; 'right runway wrong procedure' was not one I had considered as a possibility. Recent improvements have been made in the DALTON departure procedure; eliminating any kind of altitude or DME restrictions. Take off and turn; maintain; simple. Looking at the SID's for Runways 1 and Runway 6 you see the instructions are identical; turn right 040 at 2.3 DME turn left; simple; same for both runways. I would like to see more work done on the Runways 19 and 24 procedures to follow the same format as the Runways 1 and 6. I realize the numerous obstacles that surround the airport are factors in creating these departure procedures; but maybe something can be done. I had one more thought. Not to add to the workload of some of the best controllers in the country; but I couldn't help wonder if a reminder of the procedure just before takeoff would help. 'Cessna 1234 fly runway heading to XXX turn right to XXX maintain XXX clear for takeoff.' Well; just a thought.




Synopsis: CE550 Captain reports inadvertently flying the TEB 8 procedure for Runway 19 while departing from Runway 24. This results in both track and altitude deviations; and a conflict with an aircraft arriving Runway 22 at EWR.