You made the statement: "if a pilot returned from lunch at a distant airport
and found fuel running out of the wings, the wording could be used to hold
him to the rest of it" is not correct.

The wording in that section would only apply if the pilot knew there was a
fuel leak (or something similar or related) prior to flying the aircraft.

If the pilot was not aware of a fuel system or related problem prior to
taking off, he would not be liable under this section of the rental
agreement. However, I would imagine there would be other sections covering
this type of situation.



"Roger Long" om wrote in
message ...
Hmm, reading Peter's post above dissecting the time order of the wording,
I
guess I would want a clarification before renting. It looks to me as
though
it was written so that a renter rolling the dice by flying away from the
homebase with a known problem would be responsible. Peter is right
though,
if a pilot returned from lunch at a distant airport and found fuel running
out of the wings, the wording could be used to hold him to the rest of it.

If the "being flown" in the first line was replace by "departing the home
base" or "accepting the aircraft for flight" I would consider it
reasonable.

--
Roger Long