BE20 PLT CONCERNED WITH AUW IFR PUBLISHED DEP PROC; THAT IT SHOULD BE WRITTEN MORE RESTRICTIVE.

Narrative

THE PURPOSE OF THIS RPT IS SOLELY TO INFORM YOU OF PERCEIVED DEFICIENCIES IN THE PUBLISHED IFR DEP PROCS AT THE WAUSAU DOWNTOWN ARPT (AUW); WAUSAU; WISC. NO INCIDENT; OPERATIONAL PROBS; OR VIOLATIONS OF FAR'S OCCURRED. HOWEVER; UPON PREPARING FOR DEP; I DISCOVERED WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SAFETY HAZARD IN REGARD TO THE PUBLISHED IFR DEP PROC. IT READS: 'ALL RWYS: W DEPS (220 DEG CLOCKWISE TO 300 DEG) CLB TO 3500 FT ON RWY HEADING BEFORE PROCEEDING ON COURSE. RWY 4: N DEPS (360 DEG CLOCKWISE TO 030 DEG) CLB ON RWY HEADING TO 2900 FT BEFORE PROCEEDING ON COURSE.' BECAUSE OF THE OBSTRUCTION 2547 FT MSL LOCATED 2 1/2 MILES W OF THE ARPT; I BELIEVE THE DEP PROC SHOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE FOR RWY 30 AND RWY 22 TKOFS. FOR EXAMPLE; MY DEP WAS A S DEP (170 DEG) WITH A TKOF ON RWY 30. IN THIS CASE; THE USUAL DIRECTION OF TURN FOR A S DEP WOULD BE TO THE L; BEGINNING THE TURN AT 400 FT QFE WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CONTRARY. THIS IS A TURN IN THE DIRECTION OF THE 2547 FT OBSTRUCTION; PLACING THE ACFT IN GREAT JEOPARDY. SIMILARLY; CONSIDER AN ACFT TAKING OFF ON RWY 22 WITH A N DEP (010 DEG FOR EXAMPLE). WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS OR A DEP PROC TO THE CONTRARY; MAKING A R TURN ON COURSE AT 400 FT QFE WOULD BE TOWARD THE 2547 FT OBSTRUCTION. AS IS STATED IN MANY IFR DEP PROCS AT ARPTS WHICH REQUIRE AVOIDANCE OF NEARBY OBSTRUCTIONS/TERRAIN; I SUGGEST THAT THE IFR DEP AT AUW BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS; SUCH AS: RWY 30; CLB TO 3500 FT ON RWY HEADING BEFORE TURNING L. RWY 22; CLB TO 3500 FT ON RWY HEADING BEFORE TURNING R. IN CLOSING; I SHOULD ADD THAT MY DEP ON RWY 30 AVOIDED THE OBSTRUCTION BECAUSE THE PRE-TKOF DEP INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY MINNEAPOLIS CENTER WAS TO TURN R. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THIS WAS TO AVOID THE OBSTRUCTION OR TO AVOID THE CLASS D AIRSPACE AT MOSINEE; APPROX 4 MILES S; OR BOTH. IN ANY CASE; I BELIEVE THE PUBLISHED DEP PROC SHOULD PROVIDE A SAFE DEP ABSENT ANY DEP INSTRUCTIONS FROM ATC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR IS CONCERNED THAT AN INCOMPLETE REVIEW OF THE IMMEDIATE TERRAIN MAY LEAD A PLT TO BE LESS THAN CONSCIENTIOUS IN UNDERSTANDING LCL OBSTRUCTION CLB CRITERIA. THE RPTR SUGGESTS THAT THE DOD FLIP BE WRITTEN MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN AS PUBLISHED. THE RPTR SUGGESTS THAT THE WRITTEN FORMAT OF PORT COLUMBUS INTL AND METTLEFIELD ARPT'S BE UTILIZED: '...CLB RWY HEADING TO (ALT)...'; IN LIEU OF AUW'S ...CLB TO (ALT) ON RWY HEADING BEFORE...'