Narrative:

ZZZ airport was at approach minimums however aircraft were not being able to complete the approach. As such; we had multiple aircraft holding in our airspace and center had aircraft holding as well. Aircraft X opted to try the approach; went missed; and advised he wanted to wait. I felt the holding pattern at the initial approach fix was full. 6000 ft.; 7000 ft.; 8000 ft.; 9000 ft.; and 10000 ft. Are our usable altitudes there and 8000 ft.; 9000 ft. And 10000 ft. Were filled. Leaving 6000 ft. And 7000 ft. Open allowed me to get overflights through and any arrivals in who wanted to try the approach. I didn't want to commit aircraft X to a holding pattern at ZZZ VOR as I'd lose a lot of control of that section of airspace. Center had already been advised to hold inbound aircraft so I opted to use long legs and vectors to 'hold' aircraft X for the time being. I suspected one of the aircraft in holding was going to divert soon and I would then just have aircraft X take his place. This is about when the next controller relieved me. I did not communicate my plan; but informed him of the holding traffic and of aircraft X who was 'holding' but on a vector. Shortly after our relief briefing overlap after I had left the room; aircraft X penetrated the 7900 ft. MVA (minimum vectoring altitude) at 7000 ft. And I was called back to the operation to verify he did not have holding instructions. I realize now that I should have been more clear that aircraft X was on a vector. My choice of phrase 'vector holding' may have confused the relieving controller into thinking he was in a holding pattern. Although I still believe the technique was an appropriate option; the operation could have been safer if I had climbed aircraft X to 8000 ft. As this alleviates the risk of MVA penetration. I chose 7000 ft.; as 8000 ft. Is a very popular overflight altitude and the arrival altitude of aircraft being delivered from ZZZ1.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Approach Controller reported miscommunication between controllers lead to an aircraft being below minimum vectoring altitude.

Narrative: ZZZ airport was at approach minimums however aircraft were not being able to complete the approach. As such; we had multiple aircraft holding in our airspace and Center had aircraft holding as well. Aircraft X opted to try the approach; went missed; and advised he wanted to wait. I felt the holding pattern at the initial approach fix was full. 6000 ft.; 7000 ft.; 8000 ft.; 9000 ft.; and 10000 ft. are our usable altitudes there and 8000 ft.; 9000 ft. and 10000 ft. were filled. Leaving 6000 ft. and 7000 ft. open allowed me to get overflights through and any arrivals in who wanted to try the approach. I didn't want to commit Aircraft X to a holding pattern at ZZZ VOR as I'd lose a lot of control of that section of airspace. Center had already been advised to hold inbound aircraft so I opted to use long legs and vectors to 'hold' Aircraft X for the time being. I suspected one of the aircraft in holding was going to divert soon and I would then just have Aircraft X take his place. This is about when the next controller relieved me. I did not communicate my plan; but informed him of the holding traffic and of Aircraft X who was 'holding' but on a vector. Shortly after our relief briefing overlap after I had left the room; Aircraft X penetrated the 7900 ft. MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) at 7000 ft. and I was called back to the operation to verify he did not have holding instructions. I realize now that I should have been more clear that Aircraft X was on a vector. My choice of phrase 'vector holding' may have confused the relieving controller into thinking he was in a holding pattern. Although I still believe the technique was an appropriate option; the operation could have been safer if I had climbed Aircraft X to 8000 ft. as this alleviates the risk of MVA penetration. I chose 7000 ft.; as 8000 ft. is a very popular overflight altitude and the arrival altitude of aircraft being delivered from ZZZ1.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.