jazzykex...I do take some exception as I have earned a living flying the metroliner (albeit 23plus years ago...jets now thank God). Some of the comments here show an understanding of flying ...granted some are a little too conclusive assuming that the crew feathered the engine/prop is a bit too much of a leap just yet.
I think it is useful for pilots to think about what might have happened...it is like going for a run...are you practicing to run away from a bear? no...but if it happens that you run into a bear, it might help.
It is interesting to note the comments about the RAF instructor and roll control. AS I mentioned the wing was extended...but the ailerons were not. The shorter wing Metro 2/2A was much crisper in roll control.
It is simply very easy to over control an airplane with limited visual reference. I've also wondered what the fuel state and position of one ''crossflow'' valve is/was.
The metro does not have powered ailerons and feels a bit stiff. I've also flown the BAE146 (briefly thank God) and it feels much lighter on the controls.
I wrote an article about transitioning to visual, and if you google: transitioning to visual, you might find it on the avweb site.
If the crash was caused by visual miscues, losing sight of the runway in the flare, or any of the problems in the last few seconds of landing, it should be a wakeup call for more training.
It is quite foggy in the central valley of California, where I flew the metroliner. Also flew a great deal into the one airport selected for ''blind landing'' experiements due to is fog (arcata/eureka). Things can get dicey and the only way to learn is by experience, flying with someone who has ''been there and done that''.