United States of America

The pilot's failure to attain alignment with the centerline of the runway, and his failure to execute a missed approach. Factors which contributed to the accident were: the dark night, the pilot's improper decision to initiate the approach in below-minimum weather conditions, the adverse weather, and the snow covered runway.

The pilot-in-command's improper approach planning and premature extension of the landing gear, resulting in the flight being unable to maintain sufficient altitude and airspeed to reach the runway. The loss of engine power on one engine was a factor.

Improper servicing of the airplane with jet fuel, which resulted in preignition and/or detonation and subsequent failure of pistons in both engines. A factor related to the accident was: the lack of a restrictive mating nozzle on the refueling truck.

Improper in-flight planning/decision by the pilot, and the accumulation of airframe ice, which resulted in an inadvertent stall. Factors associated with the accident were: partial failure of both alternators, which resulted in a subsequent electrical system failure and an inoperative anti-ice/de-ice system, adverse weather (icing) conditions, and airframe (wing) ice.

Failure of the pilot-in-command to maintain vmc resulting in the inflight loss of control. Contributing to the accident was the fatigue failure of a section of pipe adjacent to a flange which connects to the turbocharger oil outlet of the left engine assembly.

Loss of engine power due to fuel contamination.

The accident was the consequence of the following factors:
(1) An aerodynamic stall that occurred when the flightcrew allowed the airspeed to decay to stall speed following a very poorly planned and executed approach characterized by an absence
of procedural discipline;
(2) Improper pilot response to the stall warning, including failure to advance the power levers to maximum, and inappropriately raising the flaps;
(3) Flightcrew inexperience in 'glass cockpit' automatic aircraft, aircraft type, and in seat position, a situation exacerbated by a side letter of agreement between the company and its pilots;
(4) The company's failure to provide adequate crew resource management training, and the FAA's failure to require such training;
(5) The company's failure to provide adequate stabilized approach criteria, and the FAA's failure to require such criteria; and
(6) The unavailability of suitable training simulators that precluded fully effective flightcrew training.
Note: Items 1, 2, and 3 were approved by a Board vote of 4-0. Item 5 was adopted 3-1, with the dissenting Member believing the item was a contributory cause. The Board was divided 2-2 on items 4 and 6, two Members believing them causal and two Members, contributory.

The pilot's improper remedial action concerning a right engine power anomaly, and his failure to maintain adequate airspeed during go-around from an aborted precautionary landing, which resulted in a loss of aircraft control and an uncontrolled descent. Factors related to the accident were: failure of the owner/operator/pilot to assure proper maintenance inspection of the aircraft, failure to comply with a service bulletin concerning the engine fuel controls, subsequent bearing failure in the right engine fuel control, and the pilot's lack of familiarity with this make and model of aircraft.

Airspeed not maintained, inadvertent stall/mush, and altitude inadequate for recovery from the inflight loss of control by the pilot-in-command while circling for landing.

The fracture and separation of the airplane wing, and the subsequent loss of control and collision with trees, as a result of the pilot's repeated performance of acrobatic maneuvers, which exceeded the design limits of the airplane.