A CE-750 flight crew failed to comply with the 2;000 MSL at 4.0 DME restriction on the SKYLINE SID off Runway 29 at OAK. Inappropriate FMS route alterations and distractions from a TA shortly after takeoff may have contributed.
Synopsis
A CE-750 flight crew failed to comply with the 2;000 MSL at 4.0 DME restriction on the SKYLINE SID off Runway 29 at OAK. Inappropriate FMS route alterations and distractions from a TA shortly after takeoff may have contributed.
Narrative
We were cleared via the Skyline 3 departure from OAK. Prior to departure from Runway 29 we reviewed the departure procedure that was entered in the FMC. We went over all the points; including staying at or below 2;000 FT until passing 4.0 DME of OAK. At some point; unknown to me; the Captain had changed the departure procedure by adding a 135 Radial and distance to define the PORTE Intersection off PYE. After being cleared for takeoff we departed with a shallow climb to meet the restriction. Immediately after departure; we had a very close TA that distracted our attention; and Tower told us to contact NCT Departure at the same time. Departure immediately cleared us to climb unrestricted to 10;000 MSL. A very short time later ATC informed us of a possible altitude deviation at the 4.0 DME.Later; when out of sterile cockpit we discussed the situation. The Captain suggested the altitude deviation may have been caused by him adding the Point; Bearing; and Distance to define the PORTE Intersection. The departure procedure altitudes were reviewed and the 2;000 at 4.0 DME was recognized. However; we believe the route modification to define PORTE may have removed the altitude from the Departure Procedure thus eliminating an altitude warning for the 4.0 DME. Also the TA distraction initially prevented us from paying closer attention to the restriction. We are unaware if there was an altitude deviation; but since ATC gave us an unrestricted climb and mentioned the 4.0 DME and altitude; and made a short mention of San Francisco's Class B Airspace; that perhaps there was a violation. There are no other deviations to mention at this time. I believe our crew suffered from task saturation; fatigue; and a non-standard programming of the FMC which contributed to the situation above. After the discussion of the matter we agreed we will inform each other of any changes made to the FMC. This will create communication and a review of the procedure so if any changes are made to the Departure they will be caught and dealt with prior to actually flying the aircraft.
Second reporter narrative
[We] were cleared to climb unrestricted to 10;000 FT and fly a heading of 260 degrees. (Not sure of heading). Since 10;000 FT was set already as I had planned on the alerter with the 2;000 FT restriction in the FMS; I selected VS instead of VNAV and continued to 10;000 FT.This was the last leg of a 12 hour day with an early morning show and looking back; although I thought I was OK; fatigue was apparent based on this event and a few missed frequencies during this flight.Another factor I think was the long taxi. We performed the taxi checklist and brief at the beginning of the taxi after which we had a 14 minute taxi to get to Runway 29; so I think maybe on long taxis holding off on the brief or refreshing it before takeoff would have helped keep it fresh in our mind. This plate is also a cluttered mess making it easy to miss this restriction. Maybe the text should be in bold print and the plate made into a fold out to better see the procedure.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.