On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 22:33:04 -0800, "Mike Kanze"
wrote:

Bill,

Perhaps we could quibbe over "successful" but if all but one got out then
that would be "successful" (at least as opposed to only one got out)

True, unless you are the one who doesn't make it.

Indeed.

This is sorta like the stand-up routine from the 1930s that goes, "When
you're out of work, it's a recession; when I'm out of work, it's a
depression."

Ayup. ;-)

I don't know about others, but I always felt that if one modern
technology that I know very well had failed me (i.e., the aircraft)
why would I trust my very valuable butt to another modern technology
of which I know little (i.e., the parachute)? ;-)

In the Stoof about the worst emergency you could have was a
nacelle/wing fire. There are film records of several of these (all
from around the boat, IIRC). In all cases the wing burned off not
later than 90 seconds after the fire started. So the "word" was that
you had to be either in the water or in the silk not later than 60-75
seconds after the fire started. These are not NATOPS numbers (it only
says do something "immediately") but were "corporate wisdom" based
upon the films mentioned.

Since the Stoof was a low altitude aircraft ditching was almost
alsways a possibility. On a NATOPS check I was able to descend from
just over 4500' to ditching configuration at 100' in 65". That was a
"pass." Above that bailout would have been the preferred option.

As to the P-3, I just don't know. If there is an emergency with a
high probability of structural failure at high altitude then bailout
would likely be the preferred option. At lower altitudes a ditch
might be the way to go for the reason previously noted.

Bill Kambic