BE400 flight crew reported climbing through an altitude restriction departing DEN because they were responding to a wake turbulence encounter from the preceding B737.

Reporter 1

Takeoff from Runway 8 at DEN. Takeoff clearance was granted before previous aircraft (B737) had rotated from the runway. I knew we might have issues with wake turbulence since the takeoff was close in sequence. We briefed and prepared the aircraft for the departure, with a level off at 11,000 MSL. The Garmin 5000 suite will not allow VNAV to be set on the ground, so we had to wait until airborne to engage that feature for automatic level offs on Autopilot, which was planned and briefed. After rotation and the "flaps up" call at 400 ft. AGL, we encountered a strong left rolling tendency, and I pulled back on the yoke to achieve a higher climb gradient than the preceding aircraft, to climb above his wake turbulence. The pilot monitoring reviewed FlightAware data and stated we were between 5,000-6,000 ft. per minute of climb during my maneuver to escape the wake turbulence. Initiating the maneuver at approximately 6,000 MSL, and executing the maneuver for nearly 60 seconds before we were out of the wake turbulence, I began to relax back pressure and check my altitude for the level off. We had just been switched from Tower to Departure Control, and I was climbing quickly between 11,500 MSL and finally leveled off just above 12,000 MSL and began a descent back to 11,000 MSL when the Controller said, "I thought you were climbing via..." Our response was that we had planned that, but missed the first level off. We did not, but should have, relayed the wake turbulence escape maneuver that we had to execute. Departure then gave us a "climb and maintain" instruction, removing SID climb/level off requirements, and we executed the rest of the mission without further incident. Upon reflection, as the PIC (pilot in command) and pilot flying, I should have radioed Tower and Departure that I was climbing unrestricted to escape the wake turbulence of the preceding aircraft. I believe they would have quickly given us a vector away from the path of that aircraft, and an unrestricted climb to address the problem. In the future, that is what I will do. The level off restrictions are on the departure for safety reasons, and I understand that. When, as PIC, I deem departure from stated restrictions is necessary, I should let ATC know what I am doing to maintain the safety of my aircraft and passengers, I should only depart to the extent required to assure safety, and then return to within stated restrictions as soon as practicable. I failed to communicate effectively in this situation.

Reporter 2

I was pilot monitoring on the incident flight. Our clearance was to climb via the EPKEE7 SID. The initial altitude restriction is 10,000 ft. (or 4,566 ft. above the airport) until the KIDNG waypoint. We programmed the SID into the FMS, verified all of the altitude restrictions, and briefed to engage the Autopilot at 400 ft. AGL to have the autopilot accelerate to a pre programmed climb speed of 220 KIAS and climb in the VNAV vertical mode to insure compliance with the altitude restrictions. After lift-off we encountered wake turbulence from the preceding departing aircraft (either a Boeing 737 or Airbus A 320 family). Instead of accelerating to climb speed at 400 ft. and engaging the Autopilot, the pilot flying pitched up to achieve a maximum climb gradient to climb above the wake turbulence. I was unaware that the Autopilot was not engaged, and was pre-occupied with the frequency change to departure control. I failed to alert the pilot flying to the imminent level off. When I checked in with Denver Departure Control I looked at the altimeter and realized that we were already climbing through 11,500 ft. When I checked in with Denver Departure they responded to to the effect of "I thought you were going to climb via the SID" to which I sheepishly replied: "Yeah, I thought so too, but that didn't happen". I did not report the wake turbulence encounter. We were not advised of a pilot deviation by Denver Departure or given a phone number to contact. The aircraft was at a low take-off weight and the temperature was cold, resulting in high climb performance. I reviewed the departure flight path on Flightaware and it appears that we were climbing through 11,000 ft. within 1 minute after lift-off, or a rate of climb of approximately 5,500 fpm. We apparently passed through the 10,000 ft. altitude restriction about 50 seconds after lift- off. A contributing factor was my limited experience as pilot monitoring in jets. I just transitioned into jets after XX years and many hours of flight instructing in a low performance piston twin. I initially flew about XX flights as pilot monitoring in the right seat, followed by a BE-400 PIC type rating course which I passed about XX weeks before the incident flight. Most of my subsequent flights were as pilot flying in the left seat to obtain the required XX hours of supervised operational experience to remove the restriction from my type rating. On the incident flight we had nervous passengers and also expected some clear air turbulence on departure. Therefore my instructor Captain suggested that I fly right seat as pilot monitoring, and he'd be pilot flying to give the passengers the smoothest ride possible. By this time mind had become accustomed to pilot flying duties and I was not mentally prepared for the required pilot monitoring call outs.