Tony Cox wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
thlink.net...

[...]
Anyway, we all agree that it only applies "If the PIC determines that
the plane needs repair". So don't take off if it does, right??

I would never launch in an airplane that needs something serious fixed

with

it. I don't think the original poster is saying he would either. The

point

is that the language implies that you could be on the hook for as much as
$1000 in recovery costs should the airplane break for reasons out of your
control away from the home base.


Bah! This thread has surely gone on too long.

The language neither says nor implies anything of the sort. It says quite
plainly "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being
flown, ...". Anything after the comma doesn't apply if the condition isn't
met.

Your interpretation appears to be that this clause only applies when the
pilot first decides whether to fly the plane away from the home airport.
But others, including myself, would consider it to apply equally before
any subsequent takeoffs - including one from a distant airport.
I.e. the pilot lands at Timbuktu, eats a sandwich and now comes back to
the plane. He does his preflight and discovers a serious problem that
"needs repair before being flown." Under the contract terms he must
now remain with the plane for up to 3 days while repairs are made or
be liable for up to $1000 of recovery costs.

In fact, I wouldn't consider this clause to have any practical
application on the initial takeoff from the home field since any
pilot who determines that repairs *need* to be done before flight
would not then fly before they are done. By flying he makes it clear
that he didn't determine the repairs to be *necessary* - even if they
may be prudent for safety, required by FARS, etc.

I'd recommend against accepting such a clause in a rental agreement.
The renter has no control over the quality of maintenance of the
plane, how previous renters operated it, or many other factors that
could lead to an unexpected breakdown. Therefore the renter who is
unlucky enough to have possession when the breakdown occurs should not
have to suffer undue financial hardship (he's probably already had his
day disrupted by not being able to continue his planned flight).

I also feel this clause could lead to renters taking slightly more risks
than they might otherwise to fly a marginal plane back to the home
airport.