"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Tony Cox" wrote in message
ink.net...
[...] you're supposed to remain with the plane
for 3 days at the remote location even if what needs to be
repaired is no worse than it was when you took off.

Who said anything about "what needs to be repaired is no worse than it was
when you took off"?

I did, but only as an illustration as to how the clause could
be interpreted.

The question is what happens when it becomes
known to be unairworthy after arriving somewhere else.

Well, if it wasn't broken when you took off, the clause
hasn't anything to say on the matter. Otherwise, who knows?
The clause says nothing about 'airworthiness'. Don't take
off when things 'need repair' and it won't be an issue.