Continental Flight 3407 Final Accident Report

26 Feb 10 4 Comments

Yesterday, the National Transportation Safety Board issued its final report on the Continental Flight 3407. On 12 February 2009, the plane lost control on approach to Buffalo, New York and crashed into a residential building, killing the crew and all of the passengers as well as a person on the ground.

You can read the full Aircraft Accident Report in PDF format.

In the hearing, the NTSB Chairman stated that the probable cause of the accident was the captain’s inappropriate response to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover.

The report makes 25 new recommendations to the FAA and reiterates three previously issued recommendations. The NTSB’s 2010 Most Wanted List already lists two of these: Reduce Accidents and Incidents Caused by Human Fatigue in the Aviation Industry and Improve Crew Resource Management.

Executive Summary from the Report

On February 12, 2009, about 2217 eastern standard time, a Colgan Air, Inc., Bombardier DHC-8-400, N200WQ, operating as Continental Connection flight 3407, was on an instrument approach to Buffalo-Niagara International Airport, Buffalo, New York, when it crashed into a residence in Clarence Center, New York, about 5 nautical miles northeast of the airport. The 2 pilots, 2 flight attendants, and 45 passengers aboard the airplane were killed, one person on the ground was killed, and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. The flight was operating under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the captain’s inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover. Contributing to the accident were (1) the flight crew’s failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the rising position of the lowspeed cue, (2) the flight crew’s failure to adhere to sterile cockpit procedures, (3) the captain’s failure to effectively manage the flight, and (4) Colgan Air’s inadequate procedures for airspeed selection and management during approaches in icing conditions.

The safety issues discussed in this report focus on strategies to prevent flight crew monitoring failures, pilot professionalism, fatigue, remedial training, pilot training records, airspeed selection procedures, stall training, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversight, flight operational quality assurance programs, use of personal portable electronic devices on the flight deck, the FAA’s use of safety alerts for operators to transmit safety-critical information, and weather information provided to pilots. Safety recommendations concerning these issues are addressed to the FAA.

Primary Issues: Fatigue and Training

Although legally the crew was within flight and duty time requirements, both the pilot and the first officer were likely fatigued.

The airport had a comfortable crew room with couches, recliners and a television but which was not considered adequate for rest before a trip. The EWR regional chief pilot stated that crewmembers were prohibited from using the crew room to sleep overnight.

Nevertheless, the Captain was seen in the crew room that evening and again at 0655 and records show that he logged into the CrewTrac system at 2151, 0310 and 0726.

The First Officer did not have accommodation either and stated to another pilot that one of the couches in the crew room “had her name on it.”

She sent a text message at 1305 stating she’d had a 6-hour nap on a recliner and felt good. Just over half an hour before take-off, however, she stated, “this is one of those times that if I felt like this when I was at home there’s no way I would have come all the way out here. … if I call in sick now I’ve got to put myself in a hotel until I feel better”.

Flight 3407’s communications with Buffalo was placed on YouTube courtesy of

The flight was uneventful (with the exception of a few recorded yawns) but as the pilots began to notice the ice forming on the windshield, they began “a discussion unrelated to their flying duties”. The full transcript of the Cockpit Voice Recorder is on the NTSB site as a PDF or you can read the final five minutes on

14 CFR Part 121.542(a-c) states: “No flight crewmember may perform any duties during a critical phase of flight not required for the safe operation of the aircraft” where critical phases include flight operations below 10,000 feet.

At the time, Flight 3407 was descending to 4,000 feet.

The descent progressed as normal with the various duties and checklists used; however no one noticed as the airspeed dropped below safe levels.

At 2216:27.4, the CVR recorded a sound similar to the stick shaker. The CVR also recorded a sound similar to the autopilot disconnect horn, which repeated until the end of the recording. FDR data showed that, when the autopilot disengaged, the airplane was at an airspeed of 131 knots.

The plane has two stall protection systems: a stick shaker and a stick pusher. The stick shaker vibrates both control columns as “an aural and tactile warning of an impending stall.” An aircraft performance study done after the accident showed that the airplane’s airspeed was “below the minimum approach speed in icing conditions for about 8 seconds before stick shaker activation and below the lowspeed cue from the initial stick shaker activation to the end of the flight”.

FDR data also showed that, while engine power was increasing, the airplane pitched up; rolled to the left, reaching a roll angle of 45° left wing down; and then rolled to the right. As the airplane rolled to the right through wings level, the stick pusher activated (about 2216:34), and flaps 0 was selected.

The stick pusher system kicks in after the plane is already in an aerodynamic stall. It “positions the elevator to 2° nose down and provides a nose-down input to both control columns” in order to encourage the pilots to push forward on the control and regain airspeed to come out of the stall.

When the NTSB looked into stall training on the Q400, they found that there was no demonstration of the stick pusher system in the standard training syllabus at the time of the accident. One check airman stated that “most of the pilots who were shown the pusher in the simulator would try to recover by overriding the pusher”.

About 2216:37, the first officer told the captain that she had put the flaps up. FDR data confirmed that the flaps had begun to retract by 2216:38; at that time, the airplane’s airspeed was about 100 knots. FDR data also showed that the roll angle reached 105° right wing down before the airplane began to roll back to the left and the stick pusher activated a second time (about 2216:40). At the time, the airplane’s pitch angle was -1°.

About 2216:42, the CVR recorded the captain making a grunting sound. FDR data showed that the roll angle had reached about 35° left wing down before the airplane began to roll again to the right. Afterward, the first officer asked whether she should put the landing gear up, and the captain stated “gear up” and an expletive. The airplane’s pitch and roll angles had reached about 25° airplane nose down and 100° right wing down, respectively, when the airplane entered a steep descent. The stick pusher activated a third time (about 2216:50). FDR data showed that the flaps were fully retracted about 2216:52. About the same time, the CVR recorded the captain stating, “we’re down,” and a sound of a thump. The airplane impacted a single-family home (where the ground fatality occurred), and a postcrash fire ensued. The CVR recording ended about 2216:54.

The NTSB have produced an animated reconstruction of the last 2 minutes of the accident:

You can also see the video in context on the NTSB Public Hearing Update from May, 2009.


The 68-page analysis section covers the following information:

  • the accident sequence, including the minimal effect of icing on the airplane’s performance, the flight crew’s failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the rising position of the low-speed cue, and the captain’s incorrect actions in response to the stall warning;
  • strategies to prevent flight crew monitoring failures, including explicit pilot training for monitoring and standard operating procedures that promote effective monitoring;
  • pilot professionalism, including captain leadership skills and adherence to sterile cockpit and standard operating procedures
  • fatigue, including commuting pilots’ use of company crew rooms as rest facilities and industry efforts to mitigate fatigue;
  • remedial training for poor-performing pilots, the need for detailed documentation of pilot training and checking events and retention of such records, and the information to be included in an air carrier’s assessment of a pilot applicant;
  • flight crew procedures and training to ensure that selected airspeeds are matched to the position of a ref speeds switch or similar device;

The NTSB chairman, Deborah A. P. Hersman, summarises as follows:

The final report includes 46 separate findings and a determination that the probable cause of the accident was the captain’s inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover. Contributing to the accident were the (1) flight crew’s failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the rising position of the low-speed cue, (2) the flight crew’s failure to adhere to sterile cockpit procedures, (3) the captain’s failure to effectively manage the flight, and (4) Colgan Air’s inadequate procedures for airspeed selection and management during approaches in icing conditions. The final report also makes 25 new recommendations to the FAA and reiterates 3 previously issued recommendations. The recommendations cover a wide range of safety issues that were factors in this accident, including pilot training and fatigue.

And if you’ve made it this far, you probably should read the full Aircraft Accident Report on the NTSB website.

Category: Accident Reports,


  • Great post Sylvia, thanks for putting all the information together. Very evil of you to post this right before the week-end, now I do not have any excuse not to read the full report :-)

  • The NTSB report is nothing more than a massive coverup. We can see by reading the reports of the witnesses on the ground that this airplane was obviously in some kind of mechanical trouble right before the crash–

    NTSB Dockets, File 431227–witness statements

    pg2 of 131
    Vicki Braun
    plane engine had ”echo sound” then sounded like the engine stopped then heard a ”boom”

    pg2 of 131
    Hank Cole
    plane didn’t sound right, engine sounded like it was ”revving” then cut out and then he heard a bang.

    pg 4 of 131 Maha Abdallah
    Before the plane impacted the ground, Abdallah noticed sparks coming from the plane.

    pg6 of 131
    Shannon Alessandra
    Just prior to the airplane crashing, the engines made a ”weird sound.”

    pg7 of 131
    Jean Andreassen
    Andreassen stated that she heard strange noises from the engines

    pg8 of 131
    Kristen and Aaron Archambeault
    They both described the engine noise as ”sputtering”

    pg9 of 131
    Stanley Barnas
    …he saw a bright orange flash out of the living room window. … After the flash they heard a loud crash. Barnas is 100percent certain the saw the bright orange flash before the crash.

    pg11 of 131
    Michele Beiter
    Michele stated the noise, ‘skipped’ and and she was releived it stopped, and then it started again. Michel is positive there was a skip. Michele further described everthing she heard as, ‘Noise, skip, noise, loud noise.’

    pg13 of 131
    Robert Bijak
    The engines sounded like a metallic rattle and remined Bijak of a car engine with no oil in it.

    pg14 of 131
    Tin Bojarski
    The plane did not sound right and sort of sounded like a car with a broken muffler.

    pg17 of 131
    Ronald Braunscheidel
    …he heard a very loud spitting and sputtering sound of a plane engine flying overhead. Braunscheidel described the noise as a car without a muffler.

    pg 18 of 131
    Sharon Brennan
    Brennan believed the plane was… maybe in trouble based on the noise.

    pg22 of 131
    Patricia Burns
    Burns was able to see most of the left side of the airplane and noticed flames coming from the rear of the aircraft.

    pg28 of 131
    Dan Cizdziel
    …heard a sputtering, binging noise to the north….

    pg34 of 131
    Andrew Dibiase
    The rear of the plane appeared to be red, Dibiase could not confirm, but he thought it was on fire.

    pg35 of 131
    Peter Dibiase
    The plane appeared red in color towards the tail of the plane. Dibiase further explained that a bright red glow was reflected off of the yard.

    pg42 of 131
    Doug Errick
    Errick indicated that as the plane got closer the engines became very rough. Errick thought the engines were coming on and off, almost like engines were trying to come back on, but couldn’t remain running. Errick thought the engines were changing RPMs rapidly.

    pg49 of 131
    Mary Grefrath
    Grefrath recalled that the engine sounded like it was spuddering.

    pg65 of 131
    Dawn Lao
    Lao said the engine noise did not sound right… Lao also saw ‘flashes of white light under the wings of the plane….’

    pg66 of 131
    Jean Larocque
    Larocque… stated he heard puttering plane… Larocque reported that the engines were not making a uniform sound.

    pg 77 of 131
    Molly Merlo
    …she heard the airplane make a ”gurgling” sound.

    pg81 of 131
    Marianne Neri
    The engine noise did not sound like a normal plane, but more like a helicopter. It was obvious something was wrong with the engines.

    pg85 of 131
    Angela Pillo
    The sound was very loud and ”rough,” as if the engine was having trouble. The sound was further described as sounding like a ”lawn mower”

    pg91 of 131
    Lisa Rott
    ….she heard a consistent low grumbling sound that she believed to be a propeller plane. Rott advised that the sound the plane’s engines was not smooth and did not sound like other propeller planes that she has heard in the past.

    pg96 of 131
    Kenneth Smith
    …heard a big bag then continued to hear the sound of airplane engines.

    pg89 of 131
    Joseph Summers
    …heard a plane which was very low and didn’t sound normal. Mr. Summers cited a ”rambling noise” which sounded as if an engine was not running properly.

    pg101 of 131
    Rick Telfair
    Telfair stated he then heard a winding or grinding noise, then a screeching or grinding noise and approximately 20-30 seconds later heard a large boom… Telfair further described the noise of the engine as fighting, almost as though they were trying to go faster but couldn’t, not accelerating but distressed.

    pg 102 of 131
    Denise Trabucco
    Trabucco described the sound as a humming, similar to a transformer prior to it blowing. Aafter the humming, Trabucco heard a popping sound. … About a minute after the humming and popping sound, Trabucco and her family felt a vibration that felt a little like an earthquake.

    pg105 of 131
    Lorraine Unverzart
    The airplane engines made a ”chugging” sound, similar to a ”spark plug misfiring.”

    pg106 of 131
    Louis Vitello
    …he heard the plane engines sputtering as it approached, and then heard a ”poppomg sound.” Immediately after that Mr. Vitello heard ”grinding” noised, stating that the noises reminded him of gears grinding together, sounding like the gears were missing teeth.

    pg124 of 131
    David Wolf
    …the engines were making an unusual ”shuttering” sound

    pg126 of 131
    Melissa Wols
    She stated she heard the plane…. grinding and sputtering as it approached and passed over his residence. Wols advised it sounded similar to what grinding metal would sound like.

    pg129 of 131
    Rita Zirnheld
    It ”sounded like sputtering” and ”engine was coughing.”

    pg130 of 131
    She said the plane engine was making loud noises, as though metal was banging and clattering.

  • Nothing too unusual: I would expect a turboprop engine to make such “weird” noises when it goes through a sequence of such abrupt changes in attitude. The sudden pitch up for example would certainly result in a drop in air pressure at the turbine intake, which turbines just hate.

    As for the flash and then a few seconds later the noise of the crash, you will certainly find that those few seconds are the time it took for sound to travel from the site of the crash to the witness’s house.

Post a comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.