'As an FAA mechanic you are an extension of Maintenance Control. For example AA have a huge team of specialists in Tulsa. When you have a problem, you call them up and they walk through the FIM with you, tell you exactly what to do and even tell you what to write in the log with a release number generated by them. You share that culpability with them too.'
This system is flawed, the Engineer at the other end of the phone line's decision is only as good as the information conveyed to him/her from the person in contact with the aircraft. Therefore he/she in the office 1000 miles away always has a get out of jail free card. This is not safe practice.
As with most Maintenance Control centres the idea is to get the aircraft back to base using you as the puppet to sign for it if they can, even in the best sloping shoulder case the signatory is still 50% accountable, how comes you have to sign the book? In europe the organisation have just signed it off themselves; as with this and in the scenario you describe the aim is to eventually take you the AMLE out of the equation for good.
Aircraft Engineers International (AEI) and the Association of Licensed Aircraft Engineers (ALAE) have been lobbying against the loop hole the EASA CAMOs have found in Part M releasing there aircraft under a Single Release CRS. NPA 145.012 proposing Multiple release has been met by strong opposition from industry, for obvious reasons.
The proposal states that a traded CRS from a Licensed Engineer is MANDATORY for the release of aircraft. Saving the demise of the licensed engineer, and my job!!
We do not want to go the same way as the AA system; how the FAA is letting it go on is beyond me. That N reg mess up is on borrowed time. So is the G reg if NPA 145.012 does not go through Brussels.