ZaReznik писал(а):А так простой вопрос: откуда у организации по ТО возьмется соответствующая техническая документация
Ничего себе простой вопрос
)) Это вы за "ящик Пандоры" схватились.
Вопрос не переводческий, но коротко так: теоретически - от заказчика работ (эксплуатанта) или купить у поставщика авиатехники. Но тот не продает, зараза. На эту тему уже не первый год дискуссии и суды идут, можете почитать, например, здесь
http://www.arsa.org/icaaction или вот еще неплохой материал:
"HOUSE MAINTENANCE MEASURE PITS OEMS AGAINST REPAIR STATIONS - BY KERRY LYNCH
The Weekly of Business Aviation - June 30, 2003
Aircraft manufacturers and repair station operators are locked in an acrimonious lobbying battle on Capitol Hill over a single provision in pending FAA reauthorization legislation that would make maintenance manuals more widely available. While most segments of the aviation community believe the reauthorization legislation will be generally beneficial, the provision on maintenance manuals in the House bill is causing a major rift between the companies that build airplanes and companies that maintain them.
At issue is a provision in the House Flight 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (CARA) that directs manufacturers to furnish maintenance manuals for any aircraft or aircraft part to "any other person" who is required by the Federal Aviation Regulations to comply with the terms of the maintenance instructions.
The provision, Section 420 of CARA, further directs original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to make available the instructions "at a fair and reasonable price" that could include costs associated with the post-certification development, preparation and distribution of the manuals - but not initial product development.
Currently, manufacturers are required to provide maintenance manuals to repair stations to enable them to maintain continued airworthiness of the airplanes. OEMs also "authorize" selected stations to repair specific parts on an airplane, such as engines or avionics boxes. Those stations usually pay a premium to obtain the manuals, tooling and training to provide the specialized maintenance. Section 420, however, would direct OEMs to furnish this information to any repair station at cost.
The Aeronautical Repair Station Association was a driving force behind the measure, contending that current law requires the OEMs to provide the information to repair stations, but that some OEMs refuse to comply with the law and that FAA does not enforce the regulations. "Some manufacturers have adopted policies preventing independent repair stations from obtaining maintenance manuals under any circumstances," ARSA said. "In those cases where maintenance manuals can be obtained, many repair stations are forced to pay exorbitant prices for them."
ARSA charged that the manufacturers do this for competitive reasons and that the situation is harmful to safety "because it results in the proliferation of non-standard repairs for which subsequent maintenance providers find it difficult to determine the continued airworthiness of the article." Repair stations must get the manuals from airlines or other sources, ARSA added, hampering their ability to keep the manuals current and undermining their competitiveness.
Intellectual Property Claims
The manufacturers, however, argue that ARSA is making safety an issue when neither the FAA nor the National Transportation Safety Board have released reports or raised the issue with them as a concern. Further, the manufacturers say, ARSA has not provided evidence that inflated pricing is a systemic problem.
The manufacturers are adamantly opposed to the provision - in fact, they are so upset that Ed Bolen, president of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, doubted GAMA could support passage of CARA as long as it included Section 420. Bolen disputed ARSA's claim that current law requires OEMs to provide the information, saying the law only calls for the manufacturers to supply instructions for the airworthiness of the aircraft, not the individual parts.
The provision, added Jeff Sural, GAMA's general counsel, "would require our companies to give up intellectual properties." The major concern for the OEMs, Sural said, is that Section 420 would greatly expose the OEMs to liability since anyone could get the manuals and use them for aircraft repair regardless of the station's background in those repairs and regardless of whether it has demonstrated proper training or tooling.
"ARSA's taking the opportunity to greatly expand the regulations," Sural said, without first exploring the issue through congressional hearings. "They're pulling the trigger first and asking questions later."
ARSA counters that the manufacturers would still be free to license their intellectual properties, and this would give them continued oversight. GAMA, however, adds that the provision does not specify what would qualify as intellectual property and could require manufacturers to give up far more than legislators intended. ARSA also called the liability questions and concern about qualifications for performing repairs a "red herring" since federal regulations already provide oversight.
ARSA, backed by the National Air Transportation Association, has been lobbying Congress to ensure the measure's passage. NATA issued an "Action Call" urging its members to contact the Senate to preserve Section 420. "This provision's inclusion...is critical because it addresses legitimate safety concerns, levels the playing field by which independent repair stations can compete with repair stations affiliated with manufacturers and prevents manufacturers from charging exorbitant prices for the data required to maintain these products."
GAMA, teamed with the Aerospace Industries Association, also has spent a great deal of time on Capitol Hill trying to prevent Section 420 from moving forward. Bolen wrote Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.), the ranking Democrat on the House aviation subcommittee, that "the provision actually goes so far as to force manufacturers to provide additional intellectual property - much more than is required to ensure the continued airworthiness of the aircraft. We believe that taking the control of the intellectual property away from the manufacturers who paid to develop it will be a disincentive for future aviation research and investment, cause further economic harm to an industry that has already suffered from one of the worst downturns in its history and expose manufacturers to huge liability claims when their intellectual property is misused or misunderstood by unauthorized entities."
Legislators, meanwhile, are lining up on both sides of the issue. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) sent a "Dear Colleague" letter, saying the provision "clarifies and codifies current FAA regulations requiring aviation manufacturers to make critical maintenance data available to airlines, repair stations and others." Inhofe adds, "Unfortunately, some manufacturers are refusing to comply with this regulatory requirement...The problem is particularly acute when it comes to maintenance data for crucial aircraft components such as landing gear, engine fuel controls, propeller governors, cockpit instrumentation and many others." Inhofe further says the manufacturer proprietary rights "are protected."
On the other side of the issue, Kansas Sens. Pat Roberts (R) and Sam Brownback (R), along with Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell (D) and Patty Murray (D) wrote to key senators on the House/Senate reauthorization conference committee asking them to omit the provision. "A major concern with Section 420 is the impact it would have on the ability of manufacturers to protect their intellectual property. If the repair stations are successful in their attempt to acquire intellectual property that is not related to safety, manufacturers will lose control of the intellectual property they paid to develop," they said. "Stripping manufacturers of their intellectual property will stifle aviation research and investment, precisely at a time when the U.S. is struggling to maintain our leadership in aviation and aeronautics research."
The House and Senate have both passed their versions of reauthorization legislation, and are expected to conference in July to hash out the differences in their respective bills".