"gatt" wrote in message
...

The fact that there's discussion over the interpretation demonstrates that
the policy is unclear, so the discussion itself must assume that the
wording
itself might not clearly reflect the FBO's intent.

You can always speculate that the authors of a contract meant something
other than what they actually wrote. But the passage here looks carefully
constructed and is grammatically unambiguous, so I don't see much doubt that
it means what it says. (In addition to the considerations I mentioned in my
last post, note the use of present tense--"the PIC determines" the need for
repair--followed by present perfect tense--"the PIC has flown" to a remote
location. That contrast clearly specifies that the determination occurs
*after* the flight away from the home base.)

Given that, I personally would not rent one of these planes...
without asking the author of the contract to clarify the wording and
intent.

But my argument makes renting those planes even *more* ill-advised than if
there were some ambiguity, since the unambiguous interpretation is actually
the more onerous one.

--Gary