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.