Narrative:

I contacted dispatch regarding our duty limitations and they calculated a wheels up time; which we pen and inked on the release. We encountered maintenance issues with the aircraft prior to push. Maintenance was contacted and was able to clear the issue in time to depart. We took off with 6 minutes to spare from our pen and ink calculation. The flight proceeded according to plan until we were descending into the airport when we received an EICAS message sps advanced. We ran the checklist and contacted dispatch via ACARS for the landing distance calculation. They provided this in time and it was within a normal landing distance factor so we considered this to be a normal landing.it was also observed that the flap position indication and box on the EICAS were amber with dashes replacing the digital position indication. We surmised this to be the root cause of the sps advanced EICAS message. ATC offered an extended downwind which we accepted. We then configured the aircraft early; and I sent the first officer back to visually confirm the flap indication from the cabin. He confirmed that they were properly extended and we advised ATC that we were ready for the approach.the approach and landing were normal; except that the runway was contaminated and as I utilized the rudder to keep the aircraft on the runway; we got a rudder system 1-2 inoperative EICAS message. Fortunately; the nose wheel steering became effective enough to provide positive directional control at about the same time as the message appeared. Upon clearing the runway we were instructed to taxi to a convenient parking spot for ATC as our gate was currently occupied. Upon finally reaching the gate and deplaning; I had numerous maintenance discrepancies to record and communicate to maintenance control. This delayed our departure from the airport to the extent that we did not get to the hotel until early in the morning. I spoke with crew scheduling who wanted to make sure we got compensatory rest that night; but wanted it based upon when the brake was set plus 15 minutes. I indicated that this was an insufficient amount of rest given the day that we had had and stated that I wanted it from our arrival at the hotel.since it appears somehow contrary to the company's crew scheduling policy to provide any more than the minimum rest prescribed by far; crew scheduling further extended our duty day as needed to show only 10 hours rest until our required show time the next day. It should be noted that even this 'compensatory rest' provided me with less than 8 hours of actual sleep after such a long and stressful day. It would be far better to be dealing with such issues after a shorter duty day; but that can only happen with FAA regulatory changes.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An E-145 flight crew encountered flight control problems and battled fatigue at the end of a 16 hour duty day. Crew Scheduling agreed only to an inadequate duty break before their report for duty the following AM.

Narrative: I contacted Dispatch regarding our duty limitations and they calculated a wheels up time; which we pen and inked on the release. We encountered maintenance issues with the aircraft prior to push. Maintenance was contacted and was able to clear the issue in time to depart. We took off with 6 minutes to spare from our pen and ink calculation. The flight proceeded according to plan until we were descending into the airport when we received an EICAS message SPS ADVANCED. We ran the checklist and contacted Dispatch via ACARS for the landing distance calculation. They provided this in time and it was within a normal landing distance factor so we considered this to be a normal landing.It was also observed that the flap position indication and box on the EICAS were amber with dashes replacing the digital position indication. We surmised this to be the root cause of the SPS Advanced EICAS message. ATC offered an extended downwind which we accepted. We then configured the aircraft early; and I sent the First Officer back to visually confirm the flap indication from the cabin. He confirmed that they were properly extended and we advised ATC that we were ready for the approach.The approach and landing were normal; except that the runway was contaminated and as I utilized the rudder to keep the aircraft on the runway; we got a Rudder SYS 1-2 inoperative EICAS message. Fortunately; the nose wheel steering became effective enough to provide positive directional control at about the same time as the message appeared. Upon clearing the runway we were instructed to taxi to a convenient parking spot for ATC as our gate was currently occupied. Upon finally reaching the gate and deplaning; I had numerous maintenance discrepancies to record and communicate to Maintenance Control. This delayed our departure from the airport to the extent that we did not get to the hotel until early in the morning. I spoke with Crew Scheduling who wanted to make sure we got compensatory rest that night; but wanted it based upon when the brake was set plus 15 minutes. I indicated that this was an insufficient amount of rest given the day that we had had and stated that I wanted it from our arrival at the hotel.Since it appears somehow contrary to the company's Crew Scheduling policy to provide any more than the minimum rest prescribed by FAR; Crew Scheduling further extended our duty day as needed to show only 10 hours rest until our required show time the next day. It should be noted that even this 'compensatory rest' provided me with less than 8 hours of actual sleep after such a long and stressful day. It would be far better to be dealing with such issues after a shorter duty day; but that can only happen with FAA regulatory changes.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.