DFC
With respect, your dismissive post shows a complete lacking of understanding of actually owning and operating a light aircraft privately. I assume you don’t?
As but one example, to reduce costs often efforts will be made to contain the maintenance cycles to coincide the 150 check with the annual with 50 hour checks required to slot in accordingly. In consequence it is only as simple as you suggest if hours can be discarded and flying commitments can be cancelled, the scheduling of engineers can be bent to your will and the availability of parts can be guaranteed.
The A rules have been around for as long as I can remember and then some before. I am not aware of any evidence that they failed to operate without problem and nor can I see any justification to change a system that has stood us in all good sted. Finally I can see no justification for imposing a charge or involving the regulatory authority in an entirely paperwork exercise when it is quite apparent they already are unable to keep up with the paperwork.
What do you think they are going to achieve by “stamping” the engineers application?
As is so often the case it seems to me regulation for regulations sake without any justification of why the system needs changing. Even the responder in CHIRP seems unable to give any logical justification for the change or for the imposition of yet another charge when none was made previously.
I tell you what lets add £80 to the TV license - why - we thought it would be a good idea!! Don’t expect anything more for it and don’t expect any justification for the change.