Your not that captain are you by any chance,
yr right,
Not only was I not that Captain, I simply do not believe the story.
Some of the smartest LAMEs I have come across were to be found on Qantas International's outstations. Not all Qantas stations have Qantas maintenance personnel, mores the pity.
That does not change the fact that I have knocked back aircraft that were not, as far as I was concerned at the time, fit for service. That experience has not been limited to airline aircraft, some of the worst defects I have picked up, doing a daily, have been in flying school aircraft. Defects that would have been life threatening. Something that you clearly do not understand (and it is a matter of law) is the matter of the rights and responsibilities of the pilot in command. CAR 233 is very clear, if the PIC decides the aircraft is not serviceable, that is it, the MR will be endorsed, and the aircraft will not go anywhere until the PIC is satisfied.
That is the last line of defense, not the LAME.
Creampuff has detailed the law, as far as maintenance elections are concerned, that results in the log book statement. That election can be changed at any time, by the registered operator, so the log book statement is hardly the be all and end all of maintenance.
As for "engineers", as far as the AQF (whatever it is called this week) an AME/LAME has trade qualifications, which do not meet the level to be called a profession. Likewise, holding a pilots license of CPL or above does not qualify as a "professional" qualification, notwithstanding that many pilot training courses result in a Bachelor of Aviation, or something similar.
Tootle pip!!