I guess it is all about perspective - EASA land has very little GA as compared to the US - subsequently, the proportion of GA experienced folk within EASA is limited or quite possibly nil.
EASA is made up of the senior folks in each member states NAA who jumped ship to the great gravy train. It is not in their interest to make things easy or do themselves out of a job and they realise that.
As to used or overhauled parts the bi-lateral agreements are pretty limited with EASA. That being said it is fairly easy to overcome this with a foreign EASA Part 145 approval.
This ensures that the products are maintained i.a.w. the "EASA Part 145" system. It is hardly different from anyone else's "Part 145" system but see above. Keeps people in a job and frequent flyer miles swanning about the planet.
There are very few bi-lateral blanket agreements with EASA so everyody has to join the EASA system to be approved.
It is painful and hard work - it will take you hours to get familiar with the EASA system and even longer to find what you are looking for. Thats why you will need about 2 supporting staff for each certifying staff and a person in the CAMO office
for each aircraft that you operate!!!! Shares in a forestry company and/or a paper mill may be one way of recouping costs!!!
Is it safety or cost effective as compared to other systems? - doubtful. As mentioned it diverts people away from the real object of the exercise. Most that I have experienced cant see the wood for the trees and will slavishly follow the
system and never see a safety issue. They have no time to take a step back.
Hughes500 - a quick look tells me that MDHI does in fact have an EASA 145 approval - EASA.145.5475 - the important part is the correct release document which in your case could be single EASA, dual EASA FAA or triple EASA FAA TCCA.