Guidebook for Through-the-Fence Operations (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 32-45
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 32... ...
32 CHAPTER THREE LEGAL INTERESTS AND PRINCIPLES 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Legal Interests 3.3 Legal Principles Established Through FAA Decisions 3.4 Legal Principles Established Through Court Rulings 3.5 Wrap-Up 3.1 INTRODUCTION In addition to federal and state obligations (discussed in Chapter 2: Airport Sponsor Obligations) , legal interests and principles pertaining to TTF operations have been established through a multitude of FAA decisions and court rulings.
|
From page 33... ...
ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 33 3.2 LEGAL INTERESTS AIRPORT SPONSOR'S INTERESTS IN AN AIRPORT An airport sponsor of a federally obligated airport has multiple legal interests in the airport, especially as it relates to the property (i.e., land) of the airport.
|
From page 34... ...
34 SOURCE OF AUTHORITY FOR TTF ACCESS An owner/user of property located adjacent to a federally obligated airport does not have the legal authority to access (or provide access to) the airport from the property.
|
From page 35... ...
ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 35 The FAA does not consider the reasonableness of fees imposed by the airport sponsor on TTF operations to be an FAA matter. However, it is important to note that the FAA has ruled on this issue in the past and has consistently ruled in favor of the airport sponsor.
|
From page 36... ...
36 The FAA determined that the Airport Sponsor was not in violation of Assurance 22 and Assurance 23 (Exclusive Rights) as FAA action is not necessary when an airport sponsor is in the process of developing operating restrictions.
|
From page 37... ...
ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 37 The FAA determined that allowing temporary non-commercial self-fueling demonstrated that the Airport Sponsor had allowed and therefore had not denied AmAv's right to engage in non-commercial self-fueling.
|
From page 39... ...
ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 39 JETAWAY AVIATION V MONTROSE COUNTY In 2006, JetAway filed a second complaint.
|
From page 40... ...
40 Figure 3-3 illustrates the geographic locations of federally obligated airports where litigation associated with TTF operations has occurred and legal principles were established through court rulings. Figure 3-3: Airport Geographic Locations of Court Rulings on TTF Operations JADE AIRCRAFT SALES, INC.
|
From page 41... ...
ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 41 STANDRIDGE FLYING SERVICE V
|
From page 42... ...
42 NELSON V McMINN COUNTY McMinn County Airport (Airport)
|
From page 43... ...
ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 43 JetAway's arguments. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed most of the trial court's decision, but remanded some of the claims to the trial court for further factual development.
|
From page 44... ...
44 In 2004, JetAway purchased land located adjacent to the Airport that had TTF access rights. A building, which was originally designed for non-commercial aeronautical TTF activities, was located on the land.
|
From page 45... ...
ACRP Report 114: Guidebook for Through-The-Fence Operations 45 YAKIMA AIR TERMINAL-MCALLISTER FIELD V
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.