Airport (less than 10 km from airport)

The accident was the consequence of an aerodynamic stall that occurred on short final at low height due to the combination of the following factors: the aircraft was in a critical angle of attack and its speed was insufficient because both engines run at low regime for a period of more than 20 seconds. Possible errors in the reading of certain instruments such as the speed indicator and the angle of attack indicator remain a contributing factor.

The pilot's failure to lower the landing gear prior to landing. A factor to the accident was the pilot's diverted attention due to the flap system anomaly.

It was determined that the crew failed to proceed to a proper inspection prior to departure and did not realize that the aircraft (wings, tail and fuselage) was contaminated with frost. This caused the aircraft to be unable to gain sufficient height after rotation as the aerodynamic properties were altered. The fact that the total weight of the aircraft was above the MTOW and the CofG was near the permissible limit was considered as a contributing factors.

The fuel truck operator's improper refueling of a gasoline engine powered airplane with jet (turbine) fuel, and the pilot's inadequate preflight, which resulted in a loss of power in both engines and subsequent collision with trees. Factors associated with the accident were the unclear communications between the Spanish-speaking fuel truck operator and the English speaking pilot, and the uel truck operator's lack of familiarity with the accident airplane's fueling requirements. An additional factor was the absence of the required placards adjacent to the fuel filler caps indicating that only gasoline (av-gas) should be used.

Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors:
1. The flight crew attempted a night landing in the absence of runway edge lights. The aircraft touched down 300 feet to the left of Runway 05L and 1800 feet beyond the threshold.
2. The runway was not closed for night use despite the absence of runway edge lights. Nothing required it to be closed.
3. Poor flight planning, non-compliance with regulations and standard operating procedures (SOPs), and the lack of communications between the two pilots reveal a lack of airmanship on the part of the crew, which contributed to the accident.
Findings as to Risk:
1. Because they had not been given a safety briefing, the passengers were not familiar with the use of the main door or the emergency exit, which could have delayed the evacuation, with serious consequences.
2. The armrest of the side seat had not been removed as required and was blocking access to the emergency exit, which could have delayed the evacuation, with serious consequences.
3. Because they had not been given a safety briefing, the passengers seated in the side seats did not know that they should have worn shoulder straps and did not wear them, so they were not properly protected.
4. The possibility of flying to an airport that does not meet the standards for night use gives pilots the opportunity to attempt to land there, which in itself increases the risk of an accident.
5. The landing performance diagrams and the chart used to determine the landing distance did not enable the flight crew to ensure that the runway was long enough for a safe landing on a snow-covered surface.