RVR, I'm not trying to pick fights. This is techlog. Off the cuff doesn't belong here. Nor do "answers" that are simplified to the point of being useless, or dangerous.
The 300m gate you're refferring to, will be equally difficult to hit from a EFATO scenario.
No it isn't. They are designed around the abilities of the average airline pilot, with a margin for error.
The 300m window is based on the practical test standard. EFATO tolerances in proficiency checks are based on a maximum 20 degree swing off heading during the EFATO, with the pilot subsequently containing and controlling the heading within 5 degrees of the target.
Given that you had been tracking the centreline of your 30m/45m/60m wide runway, and the earliest liftoff point calculated off your lightest departure weight, 300m is
plenty wide enough -- and not for the ace of the base, but for anybody that passed their proficiency check.
Kleenex is for wiping your nose, and toilet paper is for wiping your backside. EO departure procedures are designed for EFATO, not 1 INOP missed approached. They are predicated on a particular starting point that is easy to achieve off the runway but nearly impossible to achieve in a missed approach in the soup.
An EO departure procedure
might be an option in some circumstances, but not always. You would have to study the procedure and the terrain before you thought about using it for a situation for which it was not designed.
It is not just a case of starting higher with more energy. Unless you have really taken a look at the specific location, attempting to follow an EO SID affords no more protection than a racetrack pattern that keeps you in the circling area or turning towards the sea/mudflats/etc.