Aircraft Engineer Wins $40,000 After Being Sacked Over a 17-Minute Singapore Airlines Flight Delay Case

An aircraft maintenance engineer who was fired after his decision to power down a plane caused a 17-minute flight delay has won more than $40,000 in compensation from Australia's fair work umpire, though the commission stopped short of ordering his reinstatement.

The Brisbane man had worked as a full-time licensed aircraft maintenance manager from May 2023 to December 2025 for Heston MRO, a line maintenance services provider that contracts with international airlines including Singapore Airlines. In November last year, Singapore Airlines sent Heston MRO a notice withdrawing the man's maintenance authority, an official permit required to perform his role, citing "mishandling incidents."

The dispute centered on an incident in which the man, after seeing multiple fault diagnostic messages appear before a scheduled flight, decided to carry out an aircraft power-down and subsequent power-up procedure, a move agreed to by the pilots, which ultimately cleared the flagged faults. Singapore Airlines argued the power-down was unnecessary for that particular fault and that the man had acted on "experience and instinct" rather than following proper protocol, resulting in a 17-minute delay and what the airline described as "customer dissatisfaction."

The man, who had worked in the aviation maintenance industry for more than 25 years, maintained that his actions represented "normal procedure," comparing the power-down process to resetting a phone to clear system errors. He argued the move helped reduce the pilots' workload, prevented further delays down the line, and made for a safer overall flight.

An initial investigation into the incident, signed off by multiple senior figures at Heston MRO including its chief executive, found that the man's actions constituted "standard practice" and did not violate company procedures. Singapore Airlines rejected that finding, alleging the report "was not an objective one." That rejection prompted a second review, conducted by a newly hired head of quality and safety at Heston MRO, which concluded the man's actions had instead been a "reckless violation." Critically, this revised finding was never provided to the man before his dismissal.

Heston MRO chief executive Asta Zirlyte testified during the hearing that the man had an "attitude issue" and had failed to follow protocols, regulations or maintenance manuals. Under further questioning, however, Zirlyte acknowledged that her assessment of his "attitude issues" was based partly on the fact that he had not attended a meeting within four days of being requested to do so, despite being rostered off work on most of those days. Zirlyte also accepted that losing Singapore Airlines' business would affect the company's commercial operations, though she rejected any suggestion that the initial investigation report had been altered specifically to preserve the airline relationship.

Records showed the man had been the subject of four separate investigations during his time with the company, but he was cleared of wrongdoing in most of them and had not previously faced formal discipline. He had, however, been previously pulled up by Heston MRO for working casual shifts with Virgin Australia without company permission, a practice the employer said breached its rules around monitoring staff fatigue levels. The man said those additional shifts never conflicted with his full-time role and that he always maintained a break of at least 10 hours before and after any Virgin shift, adding that the extra work had made him a more skilled engineer overall.

Fair Work Commissioner Chris Simpson found that the man had not acted maliciously, had not intended to cause the flight delay, and had not disregarded safety considerations when he powered down the aircraft. Simpson also found no evidence supporting the allegation that the company's initial investigation had been biased in the man's favor. "I do not go so far as to find the [Heston MRO's] decision to dismiss the [man] was because of pressure from Singapore Airlines, however, the evidence is clear that Singapore Airlines was displeased with [the initial] report," Simpson said. "It was following communication of this to [Heston MRO] that the review of the report produced a different result... not supported by the evidence in this hearing."

Simpson ruled that the company could not rely on earlier, separate incidents that had already been resolved, and about which the man had received no warning, as grounds for his dismissal. While Simpson found no evidence the man's casual work with Virgin had affected his job performance or caused fatigue or safety concerns, he did determine that failing to disclose that outside work breached the man's employment contract. Simpson said the company could have pursued disciplinary action over that specific breach, but concluded it was not, on its own, a valid reason for dismissal.

Simpson further noted that the man was never informed of the reasons for his dismissal before the decision was made, nor given a genuine opportunity to respond, and that the evidence presented did not establish serious misconduct or a properly supported basis for revising the original investigation's findings.

Despite those findings, the commission declined to order Heston MRO to reinstate the man, largely because his undisclosed casual work with Virgin Australia had caused what Simpson described as "damage to the level of trust and confidence in the [employment] relationship." Instead, the commission ordered the company to pay him more than $40,000 in compensation.

Akile Numan, head of advisory service at Clear Employment Relations, who represented the man in the case, said the ruling served as a broader reminder to employers. "Even in a safety critical industry, safety concerns do not displace procedural fairness," Numan said.

Heston MRO said in a media statement that it was "deeply disappointed and surprised" by the decision and intends to lodge an appeal. "The aviation sector depends on rigorous standards to protect passengers, crew, employees, and the broader community," the company said.