Most of the comments above seem to be about the cost of the CAMO and how to avoid the extra costs that result from EASA part M and the replys seem to indicate that the Maintenance companys are making a lot of money from this.
The problem is that the industry has been forced to invest quite a bit of time and effort in implimenting EASA part M so whatever happens to part M the maintenance industry will have to recover that money.
Some of us in the industry had been telling the CAA & EASA that part M was unworkable on cost grounds and was of no safety benifit with some of the EASA practices being downright stupid. The level of oversight required for a two seat light aircraft is more approprate for a corperate jet.
The result has been that the burden of regulation is has encouraged owners to take as they see it the common sense approach to maintenance by fitting parts that have no paperwork trail themselfs and not recording this work in the logbooks when in the past they would have called an LAE to do the job and he would have made sure that the parts fitted had a release note and the job was properly recorded in the aircraft log books.
So far I cant see one thing that EASA has done within GA to improve safety and all the efforts that they make are so pooly implimented as to have the reverse effect from what was intended.