Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Workload; Time Pressure; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
General None Reported / Taken
Human Factors; Aircraft
While on the way to LGA direct ETG; we were given a heading 160 degrees right and told to hold at MIGET on the arrival as published. When the Pilot Monitoring told the controller it was not on the arrival and asked for further clarification; ATC simply repeated as published. After a second query; ATC indicated that the fix was on an IFR high chart; and directed us to look there without telling us requested information (inbound course). Being compressed in time getting to the fix; we initially had difficulty using the iPad for high charts; making sure to select routes and fixes without other information and making sure to zoom in at the right amount without too much. We saw 57 for an inbound course and selected this. After a parallel outbound entry and inbound to the fix; ATC cleared us a heading on course to continue to LGA. After landing; the First Officer continued to reassess the flight and noticed that the inbound course was actually 109; but this was partly obscured by the blue flight plan course line. 57 was the distance between fixes on the high chart.ATC's lack of clarity [on] where to find the published holding and their decision not to simply state an inbound course along with leg length and turn direction caused undue workload in a compressed time frame. My lack of familiarity with using Jeppesen high charts and the fact that the inbound course was covered by the flight plan blue line made it difficult to find the correct course.The Jeppesen program is not often used. Using a program like ForeFlight which shows actual high charts and not digital charts that redraw and change based on zoom sounds better in theory; but in practice; makes it an unfriendly tool to use. In the future; I would be more insistent to ATC that we need better directions and also take more care in analyzing the chart.
Enroute to NYC; we were given routing instructions and told to expect holding at MIGET. We slowed to min drag speed and were given a turn of nearly 180 degrees back to MIGET. We were told to hold over MIGET as published with right turns and 20 mile legs with an expected further clearance time an hour after entering the hold. We were told that MIGET was on the arrival and were unable to find the published hold. We asked ATC for the inbound radial and they again said as published. We again stated that we didn't see the published hold. Someone; another aircraft or a Supervisor; advised that it could be found on the high enroute chart after turning on the fixes. We finally found the published hold and observed the inbound radial as 57 degrees. After reviewing after the flight; I observed that 57 was a distance on the airway and the inbound should have been 109. The 109 on the chart was very hard to read because it appeared under the blue highlighted route. We were under a high work load at the time; communicating with ATC; Dispatch; flight attendants and passengers; setting up the FMS; and didn't catch the error.We did not receive clear instructions from ATC. After asking ATC to clarify; they again stated the same instructions as previously given. We finally found the hold in the chart.
CRJ-900 flight crew reported a track deviation occurred when they were assigned a hold and could not find the inbound course in their iPad's ForeFlight chart program.