Not from the angle we’re seeing it from. It looks like the plane was flying across the runway, not taking off or landing.
A doctor flying Cessna 150 sounds like someone learning to fly. He could have been climbing out to the right on a touch and go and flying a right hand pattern to avoid flying over the trailer park. Note it’s a left hand pattern airport.
This cause of the crash is not yet known. It was foggy at the landing strip around the time of the crash, according to observations from the National Weather Service. Just before noon the poor visibility was reported at less than 800 feet…
The gravel runway is nearly 4,000 feet long and is located on the slope of a more-than-2,300-foot-high mountain, according to FAA maps. There is high terrain reported on both sides and at the south end of the runway, which can make aborting a landing “improbable” after a certain point.
Wrong, try again
OK, a flight instructor using the plane he instructs in to knock out a quick 3 to keep up on landings.
A couple Youtube videos on that Alaska crash that killed eight:
Blancolirio:
NTSB briefing:
I don’t think it was covered here, but a Cessna Citation coming into Akron Canton airport lost its nose gear. The pilot made a very smooth landing, looks like everyone was safe.
https://www.kxan.com/news/watch-pilot-makes-rare-emergency-landing-at-ohio-airport/
1956 Farnborough Airshow. Fascinating flight film, drop nose aircraft for visibility, fighters, bombers, civilian planes…
Some V Bomber and other 50s awesomeness right here
I don’t know if any important stuff is in the nose of a Citation but from the look of it, the damage will buff right out.
An oops near me …
That type ought to fly OK over low terrain on just one engine w just one occupant unless it’s full of heavy cargo.
Which gently leans towards a fuel problem leading to dual engine failure. His touchdown was ~5 miles from a suitable airport.
But as witnesses said, it was a well-executed ditching leading to no material injuries. So bonus points for that.
But as the old joke goes, I doubt the airplane is reuseable due to salt water immersion. So a good landing, not a great one.
Aviation issues aside, a statement like this really pisses me off from a purely factual and journalistic standpoint:
The plane skidded to a stop on the water.
“Skidding” means the wheels being locked up and the brakes being ineffective due to sliding on a slippery solid surface like ice, wet roads, or mud.
How did this plane manage this amazing feat over water? Maybe the pilot should have pumped the brakes harder as the plane hit the water?
Skidding may also imply a certain amount of yaw, where heading diverged from track. Which might well occur in a water landing.
I’d put that down as “poetic language” meaning “sliding to a stop not fully under operator control.” Which is largely true: the moment you touch the water the drag forces however distributed utterly overwhelm the countervailing forces the pilot can generate w the controls.
Think “Icy slide down a hilly road in Toronto in Feb.” That kind of skidding, not the brakes locked kind.
Thought I’d share this site which is based on the idea that air traffic will indicate an impending nuclear apocalypse via the increase in private jet use.
Wheels not rolling? Check.
Brakes ineffective? Check.
Sliding over a slippery surface? Check.
I’m not sure why a solid surface is implied by “skidding”, because the primary elements don’t rely on it.
We SCUBA dive in a nearish former quarry. There is still the (now-permanently underwater/wet) road that the trucks used to get up/down the quarry. There is also a Cessna, Challenger, & a Helldiver (photo posted a couple of years ago in Pt 1 of this thread) in there as attractions. 
If we want to get technical - and I KNOW we do - the term is “hydroplaning” or “aquaplaning”. The formula I’m familiar with is Vp = Square root of the tire inflation x 9.
Probably doesn’t apply on water. 
Nitpick: her. The pilot was a 23-year-old woman.
From what I understand, several systems failed her, including one engine and the landing gear. She said she could have made it to the airport, but she had a full tank of gas and didn’t want to risk landing on her belly and catching fire, so she chose to ditch in the ocean instead.
The article I’d read had no info on the identity or gender of the pilot. But I certainly flunked gender neutral language there, something I usually do correctly. Thanks for the polite pimp.
Sounds like a well-reasoned plan in the face of a messy problem. Can’t fault the outcome.
What kind of plane was the twin in the water?
A Piper PA-30 or PA-39 (reports differ) Twin Comanche.