Several points ' answers, not in anyn particular order:
1. Europe Air Sports - EAS - (of which I am a board member) and the EASA MDM.032 working group (of which I am a member) pressed EASA in 2006-07 to hold public briefing sessions to explain Part M as the changes to the original were developing. EAS organised briefings by EASA officials on Part M in the late summer / autumn of 2007 during the last consultation excercise. The briefings were held in 6 EU countries, Denmark, Switzerland (an associate member of the EU for civil aviation), Germany, France, Czech Republic and UK. The UK event was held at the PFA (now LAA) HQ at Turweston on 4 September. The event was widely publicised in the UK air sports and aviation mags, websites etc but the turnout was 31 people (!). By contrast, in Denmark there were over 100 people, likewise Germany, Switzerland and the Czech Republic. Something about horses and water comes to mind.
2. English is the official language of the EU and of its agency, EASA. In this we are fortunate as it makes life somewhat easier in the working groups for us Brits. The EASA officials all speak and write very good English, and all business and presentsations at EASA are in English. It's some of the other EU members on these groups that are at a disadvantage.
3. The (likely) final version of Part M was published on the EASA website on 16th May. As I have posted in earlier this month, it is now the Opinion of EASA (an official communication to the Commission) and the Commission's review working group of member states is unlikely to change the text now, particularly as it needs to become EU law in time for the transition clauses to kick in well before 28 Sept 08. It can be viewed at:
http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/g/rg_opinions_main.php
Scroll down the page to the table 02/2008 and it is Opinion 02/2008.
4. Once EU law, implementation is in the hands of members states (Uk = DfT and CAA).Underpinning the Implementing Rules (which are what have been revised over the last 2.5 years since EAS created a big fuss about Part M at a conference with EASA in Cologne in Nov 05) are the 'Acceptable Means of Compliance' (AMC) and 'Guidance Material' (GM).
5. EASA has a standardisation division, whose responsibility is to oversee / check implementation in member states. So CAA will be subject to review as to implementation, in due course.
6. The CAA has been well aware of the changes to Part M as the changes have developed. Legally, however, they could not anticipate the changes as they were and still are bound, as I understand the position, by the extant Part M from 2003, even though implementation of the original Part M was deferred until 28 Sept 08 for aircraft < 5.7mt used non commercially.
7. The problem EASA has been trying to fix is not what you might imagine (i.e. a UK maintenance system that works....?) but a problem created by the EU political system (and a problem common to many other walks of life not just civil aviation), and that is the drive by the EU and its member states to STANDARDISE everything that moves, speaks, thinks and breathes. This is not the same as harmonisation (a common misapprehension about the EU).
8. The concept behind Part M - the separation of responsibility for oversight of continuing airworthiness from actual hands-on maintenance, which is only part of continuing airworthiness - was designed in France many years ago and its author is one of the senior EASA officials. The German system is also modelled on it, but applied in a pragmatic if German way.
9. As I0540 alludes to it, there are some good points about what EASA is doing, such as EU-wide acceptance of modifications in one country in all countries. No longer should the UK CAA require a mod to be re-certified if it has already got certification in another EU country.
10. Although far from perfect (by comparison with what we have been used to in the UK), the final Part M is workable and has a certain logic to it even if difficult to comprehend on first, second or third reading. It appears at first sight as very bureaucratic, but then the purpose of the bureaucracy is to pinpoint responsibilties for safety compliance. I would venture to suggest that certain parts (not all) of the UK 'continuing airworthiness' industry could do with a dose of that.
11. The EASA concept for maintenance is to derive the maintenance schedule from the manaufacturer's handbook. Quite logical providing the manufacturer (if still in business) has taken the trouble to risk assess the aircraft in terms of service life of parts etc. Chain of responsibility again. Though it smacks of 'if it goes wrong, sue the party you think is at fault, but don't come to the regulator'.
12. IAOPA (through which UK AOPA is represented) have not, as far as I am aware, been half as active as EAS on pursuing EASA over Part M either at the working level or the strategic level this last two years. Just maybe I did not see their people in Cologne very often, whereas EAS people have practically occupied the building. But as with all representative organisations relying mainly or almost exclusively on volunteers, our human resources have been extremely stretched this last two years or more with all this regulatory activity, staffed on the official side by a great many professional expert regulators.