C210 pilot questions the safety of the published obstacle departure procedure for runway 14 at 7b2.

Attributes
ACN	629423
Time
Date	200408
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : 7b2.airport
State Reference	MA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 122 msl bound upper : 1300
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : y90.tracon
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C, 210D
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff
Route In Use	departure other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : private
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 25 flight time total : 1100 flight time type : 200
ASRS Report	629423
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : departure
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Supplementary
Problem Areas	FAA Chart Or Publication
Primary Problem	Chart Or Publication
Situations
Chart	airport : 7b2.airport

Narrative:

I believe the departure procedure from northampton, ma (7b2) is unsafe, especially from runway 14. It has nonstandard departure minimums (1300-2) with a note regarding trees 7150 ft from departure end of runway. There is also an 'obstacle departure procedure runway 14, climb runway heading to 1300 ft before proceeding on course.' this departure procedure contradicts the 1300-2 minimums and requirement for visually avoiding obstacles and also, at 200 ft/NM climb gradient, will cause a CFIT accident because there is a ridge to about 1100 ft within 4 mi of the end of the runway. There is also a high tower along that route. Following the published 'obstacle departure procedure' places the aircraft in the exact direction of the terrain. Also, the terrain is more than 2 mi from the airport so even with the 1300-2 minimums, the ridge is not visible from the airport at takeoff, a serious safety compromise in my view. It isn't clear how an instrument departure should be conducted from this runway due to confusing and apparently conflicting information, even using a sectional chart to help plan this departure is minimally helpful.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C210 PLT QUESTIONS THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLISHED OBSTACLE DEP PROC FOR RWY 14 AT 7B2.

Narrative: I BELIEVE THE DEP PROC FROM NORTHAMPTON, MA (7B2) IS UNSAFE, ESPECIALLY FROM RWY 14. IT HAS NONSTANDARD DEP MINIMUMS (1300-2) WITH A NOTE REGARDING TREES 7150 FT FROM DEP END OF RWY. THERE IS ALSO AN 'OBSTACLE DEP PROC RWY 14, CLB RWY HEADING TO 1300 FT BEFORE PROCEEDING ON COURSE.' THIS DEP PROC CONTRADICTS THE 1300-2 MINIMUMS AND REQUIREMENT FOR VISUALLY AVOIDING OBSTACLES AND ALSO, AT 200 FT/NM CLB GRADIENT, WILL CAUSE A CFIT ACCIDENT BECAUSE THERE IS A RIDGE TO ABOUT 1100 FT WITHIN 4 MI OF THE END OF THE RWY. THERE IS ALSO A HIGH TWR ALONG THAT RTE. FOLLOWING THE PUBLISHED 'OBSTACLE DEP PROC' PLACES THE ACFT IN THE EXACT DIRECTION OF THE TERRAIN. ALSO, THE TERRAIN IS MORE THAN 2 MI FROM THE ARPT SO EVEN WITH THE 1300-2 MINIMUMS, THE RIDGE IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE ARPT AT TKOF, A SERIOUS SAFETY COMPROMISE IN MY VIEW. IT ISN'T CLR HOW AN INSTRUMENT DEP SHOULD BE CONDUCTED FROM THIS RWY DUE TO CONFUSING AND APPARENTLY CONFLICTING INFO, EVEN USING A SECTIONAL CHART TO HELP PLAN THIS DEP IS MINIMALLY HELPFUL.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.