I think maybe we need some clarification here as I think
411A's position is somewhat ambiguous.
The Commander has overall responsibility for the flight, particularly including all safety aspects. Within that responsibility is the obligation to report any unserviceability of that aircraft and to ensure that the aircraft only operates within the acceptable defect conditions appropriate to that aircraft (e.g. MEL for despatch). The Commander is legally required to ensure that all significant defects are reported. He is not allowed to exercise discretion in reporting only those defects which (for example) have no commercial bearing on the operation of that aircraft - in other words, he should not be selective.
Now with regard to the operating relationship between the Commander and a professional Flight Engineer, there are two fundamentals - firstly, the competence of the Flight Engineer and secondly, trust between him and the Captain. The two are clearly interdependent and, in my experience, it is extremely rare for these qualities not to exist.
Within this environment, therefore, it would be perfectly normal for the F/E to write up the Tech Log with any significant defects, maybe but not necessarily after prior discussion with the Captain, and for the Captain to sign the Tech Log as Commander. Use of a Fault Isolation Manual (FIM or FIRM) is very often helpful in clarifying or diagnosing the problem. What the Commander may not do is to be selective about what is reported - e.g. for expeditious or commercial reasons. On re-reading
411A's post, it is not clear to me whether he is actually advocating such practice or not.
Personally, I would never fly for an operator that tried to coerce me in what I reported in a Tech Log. The Commander has perfectly clear legal requirements and no professional Commander should allow these responsibilities to be subjugated by commercial pressures.
JD
