![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bill Denton" wrote:
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. "If the PIC determines that the plane needs repair before being flown, .. " I come back from lunch at a distant airport and the aircraft is leaking fuel. I've now determined it needs repair and I haven't yet flown (home.) " and the PIC has flown the plane away from its home location," I've previously flown the plane to the "distant airport." I agree with Peter - the wording seems to cover someone who finds out at a remote location that he needs repair before coming home. At best, it's ambiguous. Todd Pattist (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.) ___ Make a commitment to learn something from every flight. Share what you learn. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bush's Attempt to Usurp the Constitution | WalterM140 | Military Aviation | 20 | July 2nd 04 04:09 PM |
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) | Anonymous Spamless | Military Aviation | 0 | April 21st 04 05:09 AM |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Military Aviation | 1 | April 9th 04 11:25 PM |
No US soldier should have 2 die for Israel 4 oil | Ewe n0 who | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 7th 04 07:31 PM |
CBS Newsflash: Rental trucks pose imminent and grave danger to national security | Ron Lee | Piloting | 4 | January 15th 04 03:07 PM |