A corporate aircraft crew reported the FMC did not execute a hold correctly but the crew allowed the...

Narrative:

At approximately XA25 we were issued a holding clearance at red table (dbl) VOR at FL220. The clearance was to hold northwest; 343 degree radial; 7 mile legs. We were southwest of the VOR when given the clearance. Information was imputed; verified/confirmed; and executed by both crew; the 'hold' preceding the assigned fix on the 'legs' page; along with the appropriate holding depiction on our display units. The FMS 2 was left on the 'holding page' that reflected the current hold input; this page also allowed us to insert the efc time as we monitored our fuel status (this was our third hold during the sequencing into aspen and even though fuel was not a factor; we closely monitored). The aircraft proceeded to initiate a parallel entry and established the outbound portion. Both the autopilot and FMS sequencing appeared to work normally during the initial entry. As the aircraft tracked outbound we were queried by the controller (aspen approach) if we were going to make the inbound turn soon. We acknowledged and immediately focused our attention on our position. The display range was brought down to 1nm and noticed that even though the textual (FMS) and visual representation of the hold/course was active; we were very well within limits. I went to 'heading' and took a 30-35 degree left cut to try and maybe awaken the FMS. I then reselected the 'LNAV' function and the aircraft turned back to its previous track. Shortly after the controller gave us a left vectoring turn back to red table. We were given another holding clearance as he had lost radar coverage on us for a few moments before regaining contact. Apparently; prior to the hold mentioned above; as we completed two previous holds and were descended to an altitude of FL200; we had already switched over to aspen approach when we were told to expect further clearance at dbl. FL200 had us in IMC and icing conditions. We requested a higher altitude as to both avoid the conditions and fuel efficiency. The controller mentioned he would work and coordinate with denver center as the altitude was not in his sector. We were cleared to FL210 then to FL220. It was this altitude in which the controller lost radar contact on us and issued the vector. We were given a phone number and told to contact aspen tower upon arrival for a 'possible pilot deviation'. Aspen tower was contacted and was advised that a report was submitted as we continued the entry outbound leg well past the clearance limit. Both the [operations] and chief pilot were immediately contacted upon arrival by the crew to brief on the incident.upon further inspection and review; rockwell collins may suggest we may have overlooked the defect and should have manually continued to make the correction using heading mode (heading) and not revert back to 'self-correct' in LNAV. We had a total of 4 holds issued for that leg and as busy as the cockpit was; the lesson learned is automation is great tool during high workloads; it's not perfect and complacency definitely made itself known.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Corporate aircraft crew reported the FMC did not execute a hold correctly but the crew allowed the aircraft to fly out of protected holding airspace and beyond TRACON radar before ATC intervened.

Narrative: At approximately XA25 we were issued a holding clearance at Red Table (DBL) VOR at FL220. The clearance was to hold northwest; 343 degree radial; 7 mile legs. We were southwest of the VOR when given the clearance. Information was imputed; verified/confirmed; and executed by both crew; the 'HOLD' preceding the assigned fix on the 'LEGS' page; along with the appropriate holding depiction on our display units. The FMS 2 was left on the 'holding page' that reflected the current hold input; this page also allowed us to insert the EFC time as we monitored our fuel status (this was our third hold during the sequencing into Aspen and even though fuel was not a factor; we closely monitored). The aircraft proceeded to initiate a Parallel entry and established the outbound portion. Both the autopilot and FMS sequencing appeared to work normally during the initial entry. As the aircraft tracked outbound we were queried by the controller (Aspen Approach) if we were going to make the inbound turn soon. We acknowledged and immediately focused our attention on our position. The display range was brought down to 1nm and noticed that even though the textual (FMS) and visual representation of the hold/course was active; we were very well within limits. I went to 'HDG' and took a 30-35 degree left cut to try and maybe awaken the FMS. I then reselected the 'LNAV' function and the aircraft turned back to its previous track. Shortly after the controller gave us a left vectoring turn back to Red Table. We were given another holding clearance as he had lost radar coverage on us for a few moments before regaining contact. Apparently; prior to the hold mentioned above; as we completed two previous holds and were descended to an altitude of FL200; we had already switched over to Aspen Approach when we were told to expect further clearance at DBL. FL200 had us in IMC and icing conditions. We requested a higher altitude as to both avoid the conditions and fuel efficiency. The controller mentioned he would work and coordinate with Denver Center as the altitude was not in his sector. We were cleared to FL210 then to FL220. It was this altitude in which the controller lost radar contact on us and issued the vector. We were given a phone number and told to contact Aspen Tower upon arrival for a 'possible pilot deviation'. Aspen tower was contacted and was advised that a report was submitted as we continued the entry outbound leg well past the clearance limit. Both the [Operations] and Chief Pilot were immediately contacted upon arrival by the crew to brief on the incident.Upon further inspection and review; Rockwell Collins may suggest we may have overlooked the defect and should have manually continued to make the correction using Heading Mode (HDG) and not revert back to 'self-correct' in LNAV. We had a total of 4 holds issued for that leg and as busy as the cockpit was; the lesson learned is automation is great tool during high workloads; it's not perfect and complacency definitely made itself known.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	1426248
Time
Date	201702
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ZDV.ARTCC
State Reference	CO
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Medium Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Direct
Flight Plan	IFR
Component
Aircraft Component	FMS/FMC
Person 1
Function	Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 152 Flight Crew Total 8048 Flight Crew Type 665
Person 2
Function	Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 120 Flight Crew Total 8500 Flight Crew Type 600
Events
Anomaly	Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Track / Heading All Types Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence

A corporate aircraft crew reported the FMC did not execute a hold correctly but the crew allowed the aircraft to fly out of protected holding airspace and beyond TRACON radar before ATC intervened.