What's viewed as "Mandatory" maintenance on EASA reg GA aircraft?

[A and C]

Legal issues= no common sense

Peter I agree with your general view of the situation but unfortunately the whole industry is operating in fear of the lawyers who once they get their teeth into a case will go after the biggest fish they can find.

So a Cessna crashes because if a CFIT, the next thing you know is the lawyers are into the aircraft records and find that the seat belts are time expired ( according to the MM) and they decide that this invalidates the C of A.

So the CAMO is now in the dock for letting an aircraft fly without a valid C of A and issuing an invalid ARC. However this is not the end of it because the CAMO is a small one the Lawyers also go after EASA for lack of oversight.

With the lawyers on one side and EASA on the other all the common sense decision making is squeezed out of the maintenance hangar because all your options for a little engineers discretion are taken away.

The aircraft manufacturers publish very tight limits on things for much the same reason.

EASA has not helped by trying to impose a one size fits all approach to maintenance by enforcing airline standard oversight on simple light aircraft but even they are regulating with one eye on the lawyers.

Unfortunately it is a fact of life that we are now living in a society that is governed by a bunch of parasitic ambulance chasers who know the law well and how to bend it in a way that was never intended, know nothing of morality and will do anything for money.