Last week, still reeling from the effects of Hurricane Charley, AVweb asked our readers about their aircraft insurance. As it turns out, our you're a pretty well-insured group: 70% of those who responded carry full hull coverage (moving or stationary, in the air or on the ground), plus liability insurance. 20% of responses were evenly split among the other options we described: Liability only, liability with static ground coverage, and liability with in-motion ground and static ground coverage. A single person registered as carrying only static ground coverage.
And the last 10% of those we surveyed? They chose our answer It's not required by law, and I'm not that paranoid.
This week, one of our readers wants to know how you feel about Sport Pilot training. Specifically, should Sport Pilots have to complete spin training?
Glenn from Washington writes:
When I acquired my Private Pilot License in 1946 I was required to have spin training and demonstrate spin recovery. Most of the training planes were Aeronca 7ACs or J-3 Cubs. Because of their straight wing design they were prone to spin if air speed was low and controls were crossed, as in landing configuration close to the ground. In 1949 the rule was changed. Many of the planes that qualify for the Sport Pilot License are the same old planes that were used in the late 1940s.
What do you think? Should Sport Pilot training include spin training?
Have an idea for a new QOTW? Send your suggestions to email@example.com.
Note: This address is only for suggested QOTW questions, and not for QOTW answers.