Just to clarify. I didn't mean to imply any financial responsibility for
the maintenance. Only the determination that the aircraft is safe and
legal.

I can't believe the contract language that started this all was actually
intended to make the renter financially responsible for unforeseeable
breakdowns. If it really is, the Darwin effect should take care of that
FBO.

If the language was intended to be reasonable, the PIC carrying out his duty
under the FAR's to verify the airworthiness should uncover anything
foreseeable. If he calls up from East Podunk, says he is stuck because fuel
is pouring out of the wing, and it turns out there is a squawk in the
records reporting fuel stains or drip, he should pay the excess cost of the
FBO to get it back home and in service. He shouldn't have accepted the
aircraft in the first place. If the leak just started with no prior warning
or indication, the FBO should cover everything.

The situation I think this is really aimed at is the one like the place I
used to rent. Once you were checked out, you could just put your name on
the schedule. You might pick up the plane just after another pilot without
the shop having checked it out in the meantime. If the previous pilot had
squawked the hypothetical fuel leak above, and you decided to roll the dice,
it should be you not the FBO that pays if you lose.

If the FBO came to feel that they had to check out the plane between each
rental, cost for everybody would go up. This language, made less ambiguous,
might be a better alternative.

--
Roger Long