PHAROH, an Expected Approach Time as defined and practiced (in most parts of the ICAO world) clearly states that it is the time an aircraft will leave the hold, complete the approach and land. Let's say for arguments sake that the initial approach fix is at 10nm from the threshold. That would make it about 3 minutes from leaving the hold to touch down. The PIC would factor these 3-4 minutes into his planning and then make a decision whether to stay or go somewhere else.
Picture this. Pilot Bob flies into DXB for the first time in his new Gulfstream 650. He gets cleared to the Desdi hold and given an EAT of 2100. He calculates his figures according to ICAO’s explanation of an EAT, but unbeknownst to him, the EAT he was given is utter bull. So come 2100 (his EAT) he gets cleared on the arrival for Rwy30. From Desdi to abeam the field is about 40nm, plus 20 for the downwind, plus 5 for the base turn and another 20 down the LLZ. What should have been a 10nm ride down the GS is now an 85nm trip through the TMA, without extra vectoring that is. At 200kts this bit would take 25 minutes instead of the 3 minutes from the IAF. Established on a 4nm final a tug crosses the landing runway and the TWR orders Pilot Bob to do a go-around. Now his fcuked.
However, if Bob was informed that his OCT was 2100 and that he would start the arrival at that time he could have made an informed decision and divert to Abu Dhabi. Instead he is floating in the Persian Gulf clinging to a blow-up sheep he stole from his Aussie cousin.
Take this scenario and apply it to all aircraft holding for DXB and the likelihood of it happening is not so far-fetched.
Rant on. The GCAA is happily going along with this because RJ said it must be so. Therefore it is gospel. Amen. And not a single soul has the ability or the courage to call this guy the charlatan that he is. I will gladly write a letter to him regarding this, ten seconds after I win the El Gordo.
Rant off.
I am pointing out that the information pilots receive as to their expected delay is a fabrication and has no basis in truth. How would you feel if we lied to you about the RVR readings for a fogged in runway? The guys flying into DXB regularly probably knows this but the assumption of knowledge is a dangerous thing.