Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Aircraft
We were on arrival into ZZZ at 6;000 MSL when ATC requested speed 190 knots. The PF (Pilot Flying) called for flaps 1. Shortly thereafter we received a SLAT FAIL EICAS message. The PM (Pilot Monitoring) gave radios to PF and ran QRH SLAT FAIL which lead to QRH FLAP FAIL (SLAT FAIL). PF requested delay vectors and informed ATC of our issue. We were unsuccessful at clearing the EICAS message and therefore prepped for landing with SLAT 0 and FLAP 1. We did our best to follow QRH accurately without rushing however we were mindful of our fuel situation that showed landing with 2;800 pounds. At that time we requested the longer runway XXL. We calculated approximately 6;000 feet of required landing distance; runway XXL is [nearly double that.]We asked ATC to update our company; we didn't have time to send them an ACARS due to our limited fuel; we prioritized landing safely. It was raining and 800 feet broken in ZZZ. We updated our flight attendants and made a PA to passengers about the emergency and our higher landing speed.We landed uneventfully and taxied to gate without overheated brakes. We contacted company Dispatch; Chief Pilot; and Maintenance to write up SLAT FAIL.FO (First Officer) and I called in fatigued thinking it would be safest to not fly our [next] leg of the night and get some rest. We were grateful for the safe outcome and appreciate the help from ATC; our crew; and passengers.ATC asked us to keep our speed up for sequencing and we felt a little pressure from that but we ended up saying unable. We wanted to make sure we would be able to slow to the appropriate approach speed for a safe outcome. After landing we did not see fire trucks; in hindsight we could have requested them specifically just in case our brakes got too hot causing a need for ARFF (Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting.) We expected trucks to be rolling when we landed.
Flying on the arrival into ZZZ; we were asked to slow to 190 from 210 knots on our way to ZZZZZ at 6000 ft. PF (Pilot Flying) asked for Flaps 1 when a SLAT FAIL EICAS message popped up. PF took over communications; flight controls; and asked for delay vectors while PM (Pilot Monitoring) pulled out the QRH and started running the appropriate checklists for FLAP FAIL (SLAT FAIL). EICAS was showing FLaps 1 and Slats 0. We [notified ATC] when the QRH procedure was not successful. Following the calculations to find new approach/landing speeds at 70k lbs (162 knots) for a wet runway and also new landing distance of 6000ft; we decided we wanted a longer landing distance and requested XXL. We inputted the new approach in the FMS; confirmed ILS frequency and approach course and conducted a quick briefing. Aware that fuel was getting low; we asked to be vectored for the approach. We were vectored for a 23 mile final with 2800 lbs of fuel. ATC did an excellent job with delay vectors and were able to turn us in for the approach as soon as we asked. The PF asked ATC to notify company of our [situation] and the Captain called the FAs (Flight Attendants) and briefed them. The Captain also made a PA to the passengers to make them aware of the fast landing that was going to be made. On the 23 mile final; the PM read through the QRH again and noted the 10 degree pitch limit and ATs (autothrottles) off for final approach. We slowed to landing approach speed 15 nm from the runway and maintained that speed through the approach. We broke out at 800 ft AGL and landed without incident. PM gave call outs of pitch changes as the airplane was in the flare and landed. Brakes were not overheated and we taxied to the gate.
EMB-175 flight crew reported receiving an EICAS message for SLAT FAIL on approach.