Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 55; Flight Crew Total 13346; Flight Crew Type 2400
Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Workload; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Weather; Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
We arrived at the airport two hours early and set up the cockpit for a TETERBORO EIGHT DEPARTURE from Runway 1 based on winds.We initially received a clearance of the TEB departure; however; several changes of runways and clearances were occurring. We were then cleared to taxi to Runway 24. We reviewed the SID and noticed it was for runways 1; 6 or 19 but not Runway 24.When you load the FMS in a Primus Epic cockpit the runway/SID (or STAR; etc) combination automatically displays the appropriate commercially prepared chart for the SID; STAR or Approach etc. The green coloring on the commercially provided chart selection menu indicates you are on the correct chart by design. Subsequently selecting Runway 24; however; continued to display the TEB8 for [runways] 1-19-6. The system gave us the wrong chart. Subsequently; after the incident; we found out that there are two charted procedures with same exact name.We have been flying in and out of TEB for years. This did not seem correct to us. We queried Clearance of the proper SID TEB8 for Runway 24. They stated yes it was correct TEB8.There was confusion to the proper procedure for TEB8 departure on Runway 24 because it indicated 2;000 FT for runway 1-19 and 6 not 24. During taxi we asked ATC to please verify the TEB8 and altitude after departure because we thought we were assigned the wrong SID. Never have I seen two SID with same name. Ground stated 'As published' and we reviewed chart again.Upon taking the runway we asked Tower to please verify our altitude assignment. Again Tower stated 'As Published'. We were frustrated that Tower; Ground and Clearance were unwilling to verify our SID and altitudes despite multiple requests.The Captain stated 'this is not right we will maintain 1;500 FT until we confirm with departure.' We selected 2;000 FT on pre-select altitude per SID displayed and planned manual level off at 1;500 FT MSL.As we reached 1;500 FT the Captain tried to stop the aircraft ascent but we were in moderate turbulence going up creating negative G's the aircraft power was still at takeoff power because the preselect was at 2;000 FT and the aircraft wanted to climb due to wind shear and turbulence we were at 1;800 FT as we were contacting departure still trying to go down as an updraft took us up with nose pointing down. Newark Departure stated we should be at 1;500 FT. There was no conflict and we were cleared to 5;000 FT on 270 heading. We requested further right for weather and the Departure Controller seemed very helpful and not concerned. Human factor: Teterboro Tower should be more diligent in verification of altitudes. There have been a lot of issues with altitudes after departing TEB. They need to fix it.Note: NOS Charts have ONE TEB8 SID with all runways. [There should be] only ONE SID with same name. The commercial supplier has two. Secondly the FMS selection of SID and runway combination leads to wrong charts on the Primus Epic system.
The reporter reiterated that although they had changed their selected Runway from 1 to 24 when ATC assigned their takeoff runway the TEB SID chart displayed by the Primus Epic avionics suite remained the version intended for use with Runways 1; 6; and 19. At that point the crew was unaware of the second version for use with Runway 24 and their angst with ATC refusal to provide the altitude information ensued. Reporter did; however; state that the procedure displayed on their moving map/FMS was correct for Runway 24 when they made the change during taxi out. This only increased their confusion as the map/FMS was showing the 1;500 MSL altitude restriction and associated headings dictated by the Runway 24 version but which were nowhere displayed on their chart.The reporter also noted that the FMS displays indicated At or above 1;500 feet which is contrary to the charted 'At 1;500' until crossing the 'TEB VOR 4.5 DME' arc; thence to climb and maintain 2;000 MSL.Reporter strongly reiterated his/her belief that there should not be two SIDs with the same name; notwithstanding the clear indication in their titles as to the runways to which each is applicable; citing again the fact that the government published TEB SID is a single chart applicable to all associated runways.
A GLF5 flight crew was confused by the manner in which their digital avionics suite displayed the TETERBORO RNAV SID; not realizing that the commercially provided digital chart displays utilized two separate charts; one for departures of Runways 1; 6 and 19 and the other for departures from Runway 24. Their confusion was exacerbated when their departure runway was changed to Runway 24 and; although the map display was appropriate for their newly assigned runway the chart displayed remained the one for the other runways. Because the altitudes were different and because ATC was unwilling or unable to help clarify their confusion altitude deviations ensued.