This thread is varied in it's relevance to the original post, but given many of the responses here it is probably relevant to note the following:
The 93% vs 7% report statistic is just that... a statistic. Statistics can be used or misused for an agenda. So far no evidence has been posted on this thread that identifies a real issue with respect to aircraft maintenance in or out of a "non-maintance port". The argument of a pilot not being qualified to determine whether or not a "defect" affects the airworthiness of his/her aircraft has been blown way out of proportion.
How many of those 93% vs 7% tech log reports were of an airworthiness nature? For example, would you write in a tech log that the windscreen needs cleaning when inbound to a non-maintenance port? Would you write that the ACARS printer paper needs replacing? Would you write that a light bulb needs changing when your ops manual says you can replace it yourself if need be? Would you write that a bit of plastic trim is working loose in the cabin? Would you write that the carpet is dirty? Would you write that a bit of black paint has been worn off the glare shield?
Most tech log reports are of a non-airworthiness nature. The fact that 7% of reports are actually written inbound to non-maintenance ports indicates to me that the pilots ARE doing the right thing and writing issues up when they are of an airworthiness nature.
I haven't personally seen any evidence that pilots in my company are fudging their way through non-maintenance ports with airworthiness defects. If Fed Sec has evidence to the contrary I would fully support him taking that up through the appropriate channels.
Pilots and Engineers are the team that keeps the air safe. Let's work together on this - please no more us/them attitudes between pilots and engineers.