"As far as I know the use of the word 'satis' is 'cause we engineers are all lazy ba**ards and can't be bothered to write the complete word! "
"Satis" is a complete cop out (IMHO).... Rather than laziness, it's what some engineers appear to use when they haven't got the b@lls/confidence in their abilities to use the word "serviceable". You only have to look at some of the meanings for satisfactory in a dictionary to see what I mean. E.g. "Adequate". Does this inspire confidence? Unless someone can come forward with a CAA/FAA legal definition of "satis", I advise pilots to accept nothing less than "serviceable". If an engineer has any doubts about serviceability, he should tell the pilots in the log book.
Having said that, even a write off like "Serviceable as per Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual xx-xx-xx"" may not be a guarantee of serviceability. Some of the checks prescribed in the MM can be, at times, woeful (e.g. after changing (essential flight instrument), check background lighting... FULL STOP... No further checks required). As much detail about the rectification should be included in the write off, even if it means going onto a second or third log coupon. Not only is it helpful from a pilot's point of view, it gives engineers (further down the line) a better perspective on what rectification has been carried out (should the defect come back). If you're pushed for ground time, tell the pilot /FE what you've done so that they have the option of adding what you've said in a following log sequence during/after the flight.
Rgds.
Q. (a Maintenance Engineer, in case you were wondering)