I have obviously caused somewhat of a stir here, now, it may be true that you may not be required to hold in other countries. Surely though, there is some awareness that when you are inbound to one of the busiest airfields in the world, where there are a number of other airfields within a 30 mile radius which also have a reasonable amount of traffic, there may just be some holding required? On the STAR charts it clearly states not to proceed past the hold unless instructed by ATC.
. . .
The other STARs for the other holds are the same. Some caution is exercised, but at times during a busy period when you have pilots stepping on each other, we can occasionally miss out the 'hold at....' it is not often, however, this is not a requirement from at ATC point of view. We give that info to AID the pilot for flight planning purposes. The only requirement i have seen for aircraft inbound to LHR is published plainly for all to see..... 'Do not proceed beyond (hold) without ATC clearance.'
Falcocharlie:
In the London TMA, the delays are very usually less than 20 mins.... hence we need to give no EAT. If we were to be in a situation where holding was above 20 minutes, then you could expect the 'Hold at LAM, EAT is....' but on occasions where we don't have EATs in force, and specifically when you have reduced the aircraft to 'holding speed' and then said aircraft still ploughs straight through the hold, it can be most frustrating.
As others have pointed out, a STAR ending in a hold is rather unusual, so there is no reason NOT to reinforce the STAR clearance with a "Hold at XXXXX, expect approach clearance at YYYYz."
I fly into Frankfurt, New York, Atlanta, Dubai, Hong Kong, Los Angeles and other busy, multi-airport TMAs regularly. NONE of them have STARs ending in holds as the default, and at ALL of them I do NOT expect a hold unless specifically told. I would expect the controllers at the exceptional airports (London) to realize their uniqueness and reinforce the unusual procedures. Not all of us have FMCs, either, so it is NOT "just" a matter of programming a computer in many cases!
Not required to issue an EAT?!? According to the FAA AIM:
5-3-7.
Holding
a. Whenever an aircraft is cleared to a fix other than the destination airport and delay is expected, it is the responsibility of the ATC controller to issue complete holding instructions (unless the pattern is charted), an EFC time and best estimate of any additional en route/terminal delay.
Again, while your local procedures may be different, other countries' pilots expect an EFC/EAT whenever holding instructions are issued. You should accommodate the reality that YOU have the different procedures, and ENSURE that full holding instructions (Hold at XXXXX as published, FLyyy, EAT YYYYz), including EAT are given.
You started this thread with the admission that controllers make mistakes EVEN WHEN USING THEIR OWN LOCAL PROCEDURES, but still seem to be unwilling to accept the fact that pilots might also make mistakes when attempting to use MANDATED NON-STANDARD PROCEDURES! Why is that?