Malcolm and Just-local - While the AWN35 reference is true, not so long ago, if an aircraft was maintained to "public cat" standards it could be used for instruction and examination of its beneficial owners (assuming more than 5% held) I believe. That's gone now. And no - this has nothing to do with Part M except my key point (on which no-one has commented) - the growth of bureaucracy.
No-on, including EASA, has made a proper case for this vast increase in bureaucratic activity and personnel time, on the grounds of SAFETY, which is surely the point of maintenance etc. (and what EASA is supposed to be "for".
Again. A/c were not falling out of the sky all over Europe or UK before Part M was put in place due to poor maintenance.
So what, precisely has been the benefit to the "industry" apart from more bureaucracy?