CL60 DEP FROM TEB FAILS TO COMPLY WITH PUBLISHED PROCS ON DALTON DEP.

Narrative

AS RWY LENGTH FOR THIS DEP WAS A CONCERN; I CONTACTED THE TWR A WEEK PRIOR TO BE SURE RWY 19 WOULD BE AVAILABLE. THEY ADVISED THERE WOULD BE NO PROB. PRIOR TO DEP ON THE NIGHT IN QUESTION; THE CURRENT ATIS INDICATED AN 8 KT TAILWIND COMPONENT THAT WOULD PROHIBIT OUR DEP DUE TO RWY LENGTH. I REQUESTED A RWY 1 DEP AND WAS ADVISED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE; AND THAT RWY 19 COULD BE ISSUED ONLY IF I ACCEPTED THE DALTON VISUAL DEP. THE NEXT WINDS RPT DECREASED THE WINDS ENOUGH FOR US TO USE RWY 19; SO THAT APPEARED TO BE A VIABLE OPTION. WE WERE VERY CAREFUL TO OBSERVE THE ALTS AND INDICATED SPEEDS ON THE DEP AS THIS IS A KNOWN AREA OF CONCERN AT TEB. WE MADE OUR TURN AS SOON AS WE FELT IT WAS SAFE TO DO SO WITH A FULLY LOADED; SLOW FLYING ACFT; WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN A FEW SECONDS AFTER REACHING 800 FT AS PRESCRIBED ON THE DEP. WE DID SEE THE ACFT IN QUESTION AND MAINTAINED VISUAL SEPARATION FROM IT. IT DID NOT GENERATE ANY TCAS ALERTS NOR DID ATC DID MENTION ANYTHING TO US AT THE TIME. IT WAS NOT UNTIL TWELVE DAYS LATER THAT WE WERE INFORMED OF THE ALLEGED INCURSION. SINCE WE PERFORMED THE TURN IN A TIMELY MANNER AND AT A REDUCED AIRSPEED; I DID NOT FIXATE ON THE DME DISTANCE; SO I CAN NOT SAY FOR SURE WHAT IT WAS AT THE TIME WE COMPLETED OUR TURN.