Narrative:

As a result of a previous trip to teb, our company received a letter from the teb airport authority stating that we could use only runway 19 for departure (because of noise) on risk being denied use of the airport. On 8/tue/88, teb was launching on runway 24. Our request for runway 19 was approved. After watching aircraft depart runway 24 for approximately 30 mins, we asked for our sequence. The tower checked with approach and replied that they could not accommodate a runway 19 IFR departure at that time and to expect at least another 30 min delay. Teb ATIS was reporting information F, 35 broken 80 broken 300 overcast 20 69/58 150/14 30.16. We elected to depart VFR and pick up an IFR in the air. The departure was routine. We contacted north.Y. Departure immediately after takeoff and received a VFR clearance into the TCA and an on course heading wbound. Departure cleared us to climb VFR to an altitude of our choosing, but in order to remain VFR, we leveled at 2500'. We continued wbound and received an IFR clearance from abe approach. However, approximately 10 NM west of teb we flew directly over cdw. At cdw, the floor of the TCA changes from 1800 to 3000'. We flew out the side of the TCA at 2500' and into the air traffic area at cdw west/O contacting the tower. No conflict was created and the north.Y. Departure controller did not mention our blunder. Our VFR departure was hastily planned and we failed to recognize our intrusion upon the cdw air traffic area until we were in it. The responsibility for the intrusion is mine, but a contributing factor is the noise abatement program in place at teb. The airport authority demands that we use runway 19 for departure because of our noisy aircraft, but north.Y. Departure has difficulty accommodating a runway 19 IFR departure even with southerly winds and runway 24 in use. The noise abatement policy at teb (and many other airports) places pressure upon the captain to operate the aircraft in a fashion that is less than optimum in terms of aircraft performance and safety. I made an error in allowing my judgement to be tainted by my displeasure with our delay, caused by our attempt to comply with the teb noise abatement policy. I should have taken time to plan our VFR departure more carefully, accepted the delay, or ignored the noise abatement policy and used runway 24 to expedite our IFR release. The transgression resulting from my hastily planned VFR departure is relatively minor compared to the potential that exists if a captain allows his decision making to be unduly influenced by noise abatement policy which at times may be in direct conflict with the safe operation of the aircraft (i.e., departing teb on runway 19 with a tailwind).

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PENETRATED ATA WITHOUT CLRNC.

Narrative: AS A RESULT OF A PREVIOUS TRIP TO TEB, OUR COMPANY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE TEB ARPT AUTHORITY STATING THAT WE COULD USE ONLY RWY 19 FOR DEP (BECAUSE OF NOISE) ON RISK BEING DENIED USE OF THE ARPT. ON 8/TUE/88, TEB WAS LAUNCHING ON RWY 24. OUR REQUEST FOR RWY 19 WAS APPROVED. AFTER WATCHING ACFT DEPART RWY 24 FOR APPROX 30 MINS, WE ASKED FOR OUR SEQUENCE. THE TWR CHKED WITH APCH AND REPLIED THAT THEY COULD NOT ACCOMMODATE A RWY 19 IFR DEP AT THAT TIME AND TO EXPECT AT LEAST ANOTHER 30 MIN DELAY. TEB ATIS WAS RPTING INFO F, 35 BROKEN 80 BROKEN 300 OVCST 20 69/58 150/14 30.16. WE ELECTED TO DEPART VFR AND PICK UP AN IFR IN THE AIR. THE DEP WAS ROUTINE. WE CONTACTED N.Y. DEP IMMEDIATELY AFTER TKOF AND RECEIVED A VFR CLRNC INTO THE TCA AND AN ON COURSE HDG WBOUND. DEP CLRED US TO CLB VFR TO AN ALT OF OUR CHOOSING, BUT IN ORDER TO REMAIN VFR, WE LEVELED AT 2500'. WE CONTINUED WBOUND AND RECEIVED AN IFR CLRNC FROM ABE APCH. HOWEVER, APPROX 10 NM W OF TEB WE FLEW DIRECTLY OVER CDW. AT CDW, THE FLOOR OF THE TCA CHANGES FROM 1800 TO 3000'. WE FLEW OUT THE SIDE OF THE TCA AT 2500' AND INTO THE ATA AT CDW W/O CONTACTING THE TWR. NO CONFLICT WAS CREATED AND THE N.Y. DEP CTLR DID NOT MENTION OUR BLUNDER. OUR VFR DEP WAS HASTILY PLANNED AND WE FAILED TO RECOGNIZE OUR INTRUSION UPON THE CDW ATA UNTIL WE WERE IN IT. THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INTRUSION IS MINE, BUT A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IS THE NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAM IN PLACE AT TEB. THE ARPT AUTHORITY DEMANDS THAT WE USE RWY 19 FOR DEP BECAUSE OF OUR NOISY ACFT, BUT N.Y. DEP HAS DIFFICULTY ACCOMMODATING A RWY 19 IFR DEP EVEN WITH SOUTHERLY WINDS AND RWY 24 IN USE. THE NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY AT TEB (AND MANY OTHER ARPTS) PLACES PRESSURE UPON THE CAPT TO OPERATE THE ACFT IN A FASHION THAT IS LESS THAN OPTIMUM IN TERMS OF ACFT PERFORMANCE AND SAFETY. I MADE AN ERROR IN ALLOWING MY JUDGEMENT TO BE TAINTED BY MY DISPLEASURE WITH OUR DELAY, CAUSED BY OUR ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH THE TEB NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY. I SHOULD HAVE TAKEN TIME TO PLAN OUR VFR DEP MORE CAREFULLY, ACCEPTED THE DELAY, OR IGNORED THE NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY AND USED RWY 24 TO EXPEDITE OUR IFR RELEASE. THE TRANSGRESSION RESULTING FROM MY HASTILY PLANNED VFR DEP IS RELATIVELY MINOR COMPARED TO THE POTENTIAL THAT EXISTS IF A CAPT ALLOWS HIS DECISION MAKING TO BE UNDULY INFLUENCED BY NOISE ABATEMENT POLICY WHICH AT TIMES MAY BE IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE SAFE OPERATION OF THE ACFT (I.E., DEPARTING TEB ON RWY 19 WITH A TAILWIND).

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.