Peter wrote:
to be flown by a 747 doing Rate 1 turns…Actually a 747 will turn with 25° angle of bank. You never have to bank more than 25° for an IFR procedure so if your TAS is greater than 170 knots you’ll not be doing rate 1 turns.
This is an old fallacy in IR training, where the holding pattern is taught to be flown to a high accuracy, using various weird devices like gates, while the protected area is actually huge.
There is an even more interesting difference here between theory and practise… PANS-OPS states that depictions of holdings show tracks and that the pilot should attempt to follow those tracks, taking into account known wind. Of course this means that you’d have adapt the turn rate possibly turning with much more than rate 1 if you have a tailwind in the turn. Instead in practise you adapt the outbound track to move closer or further away from the inbound track so that a rate 1 inbound turn will put you at approximately on the inbound track. As you say, the protected area for the hold takes this into account.
Peter wrote:
There is no way to code a “fly Track X”.
There are lots of departures with a track to an intercept. The GPS flies them beautifully.
JasonC wrote:
All the Fx leg types.
Well described on pages 24-25 of the very PBN manual which is the subject of this thread!
The fly-over/fly-by distinction including chart symbols is described on pages 28-29.
Every day is a school day 
Will any IFR GPS support this coding method?
Peter wrote:
Will any IFR GPS support this coding method?
Are you asking if any IFR GPS supports the ARINC 424 Path-Terminator concept? Yes. That’s how procedures are coded in the database.
I was referring to the track coding i.e. fly track 123 for x miles, with no waypoint specified at x.
Peter wrote:
I was referring to the track coding i.e. fly track 123 for x miles, with no waypoint specified at x.
The FC leg type does exactly that. But the database could just as well use an ordinary TF leg to an unofficial waypoint at x defined by the person coding the procedure.
My wish was nothing to do with that, as I am confident you know.
I just found it ironic that I, and the other authors of the PBN manual, get lambasted for producing a definitive document that says any more than “follow the magenta line and you’ll be fine” and then we go on to a very intricate discussion on topics beyond the scope even of the definitive document.
But hey! It seems the norm that people that get on and do stuff are the first to be criticised by the armchair warriors on internet forums, I should be used to it by now 
as I am confident you know
Actually I didn’t. I often don’t analyse threads and poster psychology in great detail (have too much else to do).
It seems the norm that people that get on and do stuff are the first to be criticised by the armchair warriors on internet forums, I should be used to it by now
I think you got both positive feedback and critical feedback, which is pretty good. If you don’t want something to be discussed, don’t post it on the internet. In other places you would get personal attacks on top.
My take on the discussion was mainly that a lot of the subject matter nobody needs to know, ever, while others bits one does, sometimes. I accept that the bit about the leg track coding is stuff which nobody needs to know, ever (although I would like to see an example of it so I can see if the KLN94 has it in its database, as a matter of curiosity).
