Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 60
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 Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We departed TEB on an IFR flight. During preflight planning and FMS programming; Runway 6-24 was closed by NOTAM. Our passengers were delayed by almost an hour. The timing was such; that when we requested our IFR clearance; we expected Runway 19. As we boarded the airplane for departure; Runway 6-24 had re-opened. After engine start; when ready for taxi; we were instructed to taxi to Runway 24 via Papa; Lima; hold short of Runway 19 on Lima. As we preceded northeast bound on Papa; I remarked that the Runway had re-opened and we were going to depart Runway 24. My Co-Captain did not acknowledge my comment; even though he heard and acknowledged my checklist challenges. As we reached Lima to hold short of Runway 19; we were immediately cleared to cross 19 and enter the apron to hold short of Runway 24. As we crossed the runway; he did a left u-turn into the apron; pulling up abeam the western edge of the pavement; closest to the approach end of Runway 19. The Tower Controller advised us that we needed to move to the other side; (closest to Runway 24); as we would be departing on 24. As we moved over to the east side of the apron; we were advised that they had our release; and asked if we were ready. We told him it would be just a minute; and we quickly re-programmed the FMS for Runway 24. Then we were cleared for departure off [Runway] 24.The FMS clearly portrayed the heading change upon reaching 1;500 MSL. It also portrayed the TEB 4.5 NM arc; upon reaching we were OK to climb to 2;000 MSL. We were handed off to New York Departure; and as we checked in we were just about level at 2;000 MSL. He advised us that we climbed too quickly and we were restricted to 1;500 until passing the 4.5 NM arc. We pulled back on thrust to drift back down; but the Controller said it was not necessary as we were now past the arc.  He also informed us of an Airbus inbound to EWR; and that this was the reason for the climb restriction. We never saw the Airbus; and there was no TCAS warning or advisory and no evasive maneuvering by us or the Airbus. We had; however; encroached upon the minimum separation standards. We were subsequently cleared to climb and handed off. Other than Runway 24; all other TEB departures via the TEB 8 specify an unrestricted climb to 2;000 MSL. From Runway 24; there is the restriction to cross the 4.5 NM DME arc at 1;500; then climb and maintain 2;000. As a flight crew; we did not brief that important difference; because we honestly expected that runway to be closed at our departure time.  The fact that my Co-Captain was still thinking of Runway 19 became apparent to me as soon as he made the left u-turn into the apron. The Tower Controller also became aware of it at that time since he advised us to move closer to Runway 24. As he acquired our release and cleared us for take-off; it would have been nice of him to remind us of that climb restriction; even though he has no obligation to do so. This restriction applies very quickly to a jet; and it is the major difference in the flying of this departure; compared to all the other runways. This altitude deviation happened as a result of several human errors. The assumption that Runway 24 would remain closed was the first. As a crew; both pilots need to be familiar with the differences in the procedure from each possible runway. Prior to taxi; the ATIS was our first clue that Runway 24 was re-opened and to be expected. The taxi clearance was our second chance to get that message. We taxied out with the wrong runway programmed into our FMS. Our release came more quickly than expected; and since we were already delayed by our passenger's late arrival; we were anxious to get things underway. After all; the weather was excellent. What could be the problem? We do not get into TEB often. Not even once a year do we use this airport. Due to its proximity to much high volume traffic; it definitely requires some homework prior to going in there. The TEB 8 departure (for Runway 24) could be simplified by just stating maintain 1;500. Let New York Departure tell you when it is OK to climb. I have no idea how many jet airplanes fail to comply with that 4.5 NM climb restriction; but I would be surprised if it is not a common occurrence.




Synopsis: A LJ60 crew was prepared for a TEB Runway 19 departure; so when cleared for Runway 24 TEB 8 they did not re-brief the departure and the aircraft was climbed directly to 2;000 FT; bypassing the 1;500 FT constraint.