My question is: what is easier for both aircrew and for the various FMS capabilities out there?
When we 717 folk are asked this at YBCS, we have an estimate displayed for each and every waypoint in the arrival.
If we didn't consider Human Performance and Limitations along with the capabilities of the FMS, I would suggest telling us the constraint for the waypoint that is your constraint (LIZZI in this case) We can edit FMS speed or Cost Index until we have something that matches.
However from a human factors point of view, I would suggest that it is better to issue a time or altitude constraint related to the holding fix, if you have instructed us to hold.
Reason being that our attention will be focussed on to the holding fix, BULLA in your example. The phenomenon is known as "anchoring," and it is not peculiar to pilots. We create the hold in the FMS flight plan by doing a "lateral revision" off BULLA, describing the hold (left, right, timing, inbound course) or accepting the standard hold if it is a charted holding fix.
If you have us holding at one fix, and put a time/speed/altitude constraint at another point, it is very human to (a) request you to repeat the clearance and/or (b) put the time/speed/ or altitude constraint on the wrong waypoint.
================
Agree with the above, RTA (required time of arrival) function is an enroute function, need to be about 500-700nm to the RTA waypoint or it is next to useless.
================
Here's one for you, NFR -- when it comes to exiting a holding pattern, pilots might have this in mind:
AIP ENR 12.4 "..... A pilot should endeavour to leave the holding fix on time, but one (1) minute ahead of time is acceptable."
I've flown with some eager beavers that stopped editing their speeds once they got to the hold fix requirement speed -1min, even though it was clear ATC was trying to slow us down by at least the time they specified.
Problem, or insignificant in the scheme of things?