Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: TRACON ASE
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

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.


Second narrative: I think that the automation probably failed; it should have initiated a turn sooner. It seemed to be stuck in a heading mode or roll mode even though LNAV was engaged and captured. We should have monitored it more closely and we should have selected heading mode sooner and started the turn to intercept manually. It was our third hold of that leg and the first two went well so complacency played a roll. This particular hold with 7 mile legs is rather tight compared to the other two holds we had with 15 and 20 mile legs. 7 miles is about 45 seconds. In the future I will make sure to monitor the automation of the 280 more closely.


Synopsis: 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.