CL65 FLT CREW DURING ILS APCH HAS AN APU FIRE WARNING; DECLARES EMER AND LANDS.

Narrative

DSNDING THROUGH 10000 FT ON APCH TO ZZZ NIGHT IMC. IN CONTACT WITH ZZZ1 APCH; WHO HAD GIVEN US THE DSCNT AND VECTORS TO JOIN THE LOC FOR THE ILS TO ZZZ. AT APPROX 9000 FT; NEW HIRE FO STARTS THE APU; PER STANDARD PROC IN THE CRJ200. APU FIRE MESSAGE ILLUMINATES AND FIRE BELL SOUNDS. COMPLIED WITH ACFT EMER PROCS CHKLIST AND COMPANY FLT MANUAL; AND FIRE EXTINGUISHED. RPTED FIRE INDICATION TO ZZZ1 APCH AND REQUESTED CFR TRUCKS ON ARR IN ZZZ. TASK SATURATED WITH IMC NIGHT APCH; EMER PROC COMPLIANCE AND IN COMPENSATING FOR INEXPERIENCE OF NEW; LOW TIME FO -- READ AS 'HAVING TO DO THE FO'S JOB; TOO; SINCE HE WAS FREAKING OUT WITH THE APU FIRE.' MADE SURE CABIN CREW (BRAND NEW; LESS THAN 10 HRS; FLT ATTENDANT) WAS BRIEFED AND PREPARED FOR EVAC; AND LANDED ACFT WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. LCL RESCUE PERSONNEL RPTED NO EVIDENCE OF FIRE FROM ACFT; SO WE TAXIED TO THE GATE; BRIEFED THE PAX ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED AND DEPLANED NORMALLY AT THE GATE. I MAY NOT HAVE FORMALLY DECLARED AN EMER WITH ATC. IN THE FLURRY OF ACTIVITY OF TRYING TO GET A POTENTIALLY BURNING AIRPLANE TO THE ARPT SAFELY AT NIGHT; IN IMC WITH AN INEXPERIENCED CREW; I MAY NOT HAVE UTTERED THE PHRASE 'I AM DECLARING AN EMER.' HOWEVER; I REQUESTED THE TRUCKS IN ZZZ AND ZZZ1 APCH DID ASK FOR FUEL AND SOULS ON BOARD. I ASSUMED THAT AN EMER HAD BEEN DECLARED ON MY BEHALF; THOUGH ZZZ1 APCH DID NOT CONFIRM THIS; NOR DID THE CTLR EVER ASK IF WE WERE DECLARING AN EMER. TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION IN FUTURE INCIDENTS; I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ATC ELIMINATE ANY AMBIGUITY WITH THE PHRASE 'AN EMER HAS BEEN DECLARED ON YOUR BEHALF;' OR ASK DIRECTLY 'ARE YOU DECLARING AN EMER.' CONTRIBUTING TO THIS INCIDENT WERE AIRLINE'S CURRENT PRACTICES OF SCHEDULING WITHOUT REGARD TO PLT SLEEP CYCLE. I WAS ON DUTY FROM XA00-XA30 IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THIS INCIDENT; RELEASED FROM XA31-XI50; AND ASSIGNED THIS TRIP; WHICH IS A CONTINUOUS DUTY OVERNIGHT THAT STARTS AT XI50 AND ENDS AT XY00. LEGAL? YES. SMART? NO. ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THIS INCIDENT ARE THE FOOLISH DUTY TIME REGS SET BY THE FAA AND AIRLINES' STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE MINIMUM LEGAL REQUIREMENT. 16 HR DUTY DAYS ARE COMMON; REDUCED REST IS SCHEDULED; SLEEP CYCLES ARE IGNORED. 30 HRS IN 7 DAYS IS ROUTINELY PUSHED. IS IT SAFE FOR A CREW TO LEAVE AT XK00; STAY ON DUTY ALL NIGHT AND FLY BACK AT XS00 THE NEXT MORNING? WHAT WOULD THE PAX SAY IF THEY KNEW THAT THEIR CREW HAD SLEPT ONLY 2-3 HRS BEFORE FLYING? SO LONG AS THIS IS LEGAL; CARRIERS WILL SCHEDULE IT. THE FAA NEEDS TO SET SAFE MINIMUM REST REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS: INADEQUATE MAINT. THE INCIDENT ACFT HAD SUSTAINED AN APU FIRE INDICATION 2 DAYS PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT. THE CREW DID NOT BLOW THE FIRE BOTTLE; AND THE ACFT WAS SIGNED OFF BY MAINT WITH 'NO EVIDENCE OF FIRE; COULD NOT DUPLICATE.' AFTER THIS INCIDENT; IN WHICH THE FIRE BOTTLE WAS DISCHARGED; THE APU WAS INSPECTED BY CONTRACT MAINT; NO EVIDENCE OF FIRE WAS NOTED AND THE ACFT WAS DISPATCHED THE NEXT MORNING WITH THE APU DISABLED. HIGH FREQ OPS; LACK OF QUALIFIED MECHS; NO SPARES; AND AN 'MEL IT AND FLY' MENTALITY CONTRIBUTED HEAVILY TO THIS INCIDENT. FINALLY; AIRLINES PRACTICE OF CONSIDERING A 350 HR TOTAL TIME 19 AND 20 YR OLD PLT TO BE SUFFICIENTLY QUALIFIED TO CREW A REGIONAL JET IN HIGH DENSITY OPS AND ALL WX CONDITIONS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS AND OTHER LESS AND MORE SERIOUS INCIDENTS. A 20 YR OLD PLT HAS FREQUENTLY NEVER SEEN THE INSIDE OF A CLOUD WHEN HE OR SHE HITS THE LINE ON THE EAST COAST. THEY HAVE NEVER HAD TO SERIOUSLY USE A RADIO WITH ATC.