So, J_T, may I kindly ask what would you do if you experience an engine failure beyond the deviation point, on an airport with "rocky bits" that you are familiar with, and is your believe that you have passed by the "limiting" part?
This is the crux of the usual arguments which the likes of OS, mutt, me, etc. like to see on this forum. Points of interest are -
(a) presuming that the operations engineering analysis has been performed competently (ie the published procedure is technically correct AND addresses the situation of a failure at ANY point in the SID) I will just follow the procedure as published. In the circumstance you describe, such a well-conditioned procedure will be prescriptive and instruct me as to the tracking decision I should make. Unless I, personally, were involved in the analyses, I may well not "know" precisely which bits are limiting - I don't need to know that information to conduct the operation .. providing that the analysis has addressed the requirements.
(b) if (a) doesn't apply and, regretably, that is the case far too often, then
(i) either the pilot (preflight) has endeavoured to do something in the way of a rigorous ops engineering analysis and will follow whatever strategy his analyses produced, or
(ii) the pilot (inflight) flies on a wing and a prayer. The pilot takes a stab in the dark on the basis of little, or nil, objective information and analysis ... and either gets away with it (this time) or CFITs.
Would you continue on the SID? Would you try to return to the company procedure track if safe means to do so exist?
I guess you are advocating option (b)(ii) above ? Perhaps you even subscribe to such as a desirable philosophy .. ?
if safe means to do so exist?
What does this mean ? .. and how does the pilot measure it ?
My response overall to your question ? There is not enough information given to make a defensible rational comment.
However, I will opine that I'd be flying for a different and more responsible operator ....