BBB;
This ever increasing reliance on the go around to solve all our problems is pernicious, misleading and flies in the face of proper airmanship.
That is a comment with which I never thought I would concur, but it is an accurate statement of affairs. The go-around maneuver can be as risky as the event it is trying to prevent. A number of accidents attest to this. As a flight data analyst as well as a airline pilot (retired) I never thought I would say this. To me this not as much pernicious as it is a serious training issue.
This does not mean I concur with the speculation that this is what P1 was trying to do. Though a reasonable speculation, we will never know what was intended because there is no confirmation of same - (Q400 operators, are there "GA" switches on the thrust levers that must be pressed at the same time?)
To accept that theory, one must also accept that the crew was not monitoring the declining airspeed (as per Surplus1's and Will Fraser's observations) and "tried to go-around" without sufficient energy to do so. Either way, they stalled the airplane.
In my view, Surplus1's view of this as an organizational accident is absolutely correct and focusing solely on the crew will accomplish nothing. In fact the NTSB already smells this in the nature of this accident.