<< Nutloose 3.1 Certifying persons must use their engineering skill and judgement in determining the depth of inspection needed and other matters, which could affect the airwortiness of the aeroplane >>
At last I am beginning to see the light or rather LAMP/LAMS !
For as long as I can remember GA aircraft have used GENERIC maintenance schedules in the UK. These by their nature required interpretation by engineers as stated above. Engineers could chose to do as much or as little work as they saw fit, and sometimes not enough maintenance was carried out.
In France and other countries by contrast, TYPE -SPECIFIC maintenance programmes have been used. These say what has to be done and when to do it, no interpretation required, and everything laid out clearly in the ATA 100 format. As a result any technically competent person can achieve full and complete maintenance.
If we want to avoid future liability problems, throw out these useless LAMP/LAMS schedules and get a Type-Specific maintenance programme approved for your aircraft.
The French have long been doing this and GSAC will have the relevant programmes on file, for some aircraft probably only in French, but that is one of the official EU languages and we better get used to using it.
Perhaps the paranoia that I see is due to the culture change required in doing things another way. Generic maintenance belongs to a previous age.