Semaphore Sam, I understand your point, I did not mean to imply otherwise. However, sometime it is the simple rules that we have misconceived or are using inappropriately that lead us into trouble.
My earlier post indicates that a good procedure design will accommodate a range of ground speeds (wind and altitude effects), and provided the aircraft is flown within the range of the procedure speeds (IAS) there should not be any flythrough or severe undershoot. But note that there are still many poor procedures published, which although meet the design requirements (PANS-OPS, TERPS) they are complicated / difficult to fly or have pitfalls for the unwary. These should be identified before the charts are used, but we (the operating industry) rarely complain or seek changes for the seemingly inconsequential issues.
For those who require the challenge of an example, see the DME Arc procedure for Ajaccio Corsica; spot the potential for an error – it’s not at the turn it point.
The generic problem is that we (pilots) often make up our own rules of thumb to counter problems, which in reality do not exist. In creating short cuts, we open the possibility to other errors based on our assumptions. Thus, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but pilots rarely have all of the required knowledge for completely safe flight.