"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
[...]
Basically my point of view is that if I am responsible for deciding what
to
replace and when, then I am responsible for the outcomes. If I choose to
save money by not doing something and that decision results in a failure,
then I should be financially responsible.

I'll go one further than Mike's opinion here. IMHO, the question of whether
the owners chose "to save money by not doing something" is irrelevant.
Failures can happen even with the most detailed maintenance. The fact
remains that in any situation, the OWNER is ultimately responsible for costs
related to maintenance. Period. If the airplane is being rented to someone
else, that doesn't change anything. It is the owner upon whom any
maintenance-related expenses should fall.

Of course, a mutually agreed-upon contract that specificies something
different would change this. Renters are free to voluntarily commit to the
liability of maintenance-related costs if they want. But I don't know any
renters who would do so, and in fact one of the few benefits of renting is
that you don't have to deal with these costs, not directly (obviously, those
costs wind up built into the rental fees, but that means that no single
renter will wind up with some surprise expense, the bane of ownership).

Certainly no renter should expect to pay any costs that are not specifically
described prior to the rental.

Pete