The case centered on a maintenance procedure that delayed the aircraft’s departure from Singapore Changi Airport.
The Brisbane-based engineer, who worked for aircraft maintenance firm Heston MRO between May 2023 and December 2025, shut down and restarted a Singapore Airlines aircraft prior to departure after multiple fault messages flashed in the cockpit, as reported by Aviation A2Z.
The pilots agreed to the reboot, which cleared the cockpit warnings but delayed the flight by 17 minutes.
Singapore Airlines subsequently revoked the engineer’s maintenance authorization, arguing that the system restart was unnecessary for the reported fault and that he had relied on personal judgment rather than established protocols, causing delays and customer complaints.
The engineer, who brings more than 25 years of industry experience, maintained that restarting the aircraft was standard practice, comparing it to rebooting a smartphone to resolve minor software glitches. He stated that the action enhanced overall safety, reduced the pilots’ workload, and prevented further operational disruptions.
An initial internal investigation, endorsed by several senior Heston MRO executives, including the chief executive, concluded that the engineer had followed standard practice and committed no procedural breaches.
However, Singapore Airlines disputed those findings, claiming the initial report lacked objectivity. Heston MRO then commissioned a second review led by its newly appointed head of quality and safety, who deemed the engineer’s actions a “reckless violation,” according to the International Business Times.
The engineer was subsequently dismissed based on the revised findings without being shown the new report or given an opportunity to respond.
He challenged his termination before Australia’s Fair Work Commission (FWC). The tribunal ruled that while reinstatement was inappropriate due to an irretrievable breakdown in the employment relationship, the termination itself was procedurally unfair.
The tribunal found that Heston MRO failed to accord the worker natural justice before terminating his contract and awarded him A$40,000 for financial losses resulting from the unfair dismissal.
During FWC proceedings, Heston MRO also cited the engineer’s unauthorized secondary work for Virgin Australia, claiming it violated internal guidelines regarding employee fatigue management.
The engineer countered that his extra shifts never conflicted with his primary duties at Heston MRO and consistently complied with all mandatory rest period regulations.
Fair Work Commissioner Chris Simpson ruled there was no evidence that the engineer acted recklessly or maliciously, nor that flight safety had been compromised at any point. The commissioner found no proof that the second job impaired his performance or caused workplace fatigue, according to The Sydney Morning Herald.
Simpson determined that Heston MRO breached basic disciplinary fairness by terminating the engineer without properly detailing the allegations or allowing him a right of reply. However, Simpson declined to order reinstatement, noting that the engineer’s failure to formally disclose his work with Virgin Australia had damaged the mutual trust required for continued employment.
Heston MRO has indicated it plans to appeal the decision, maintaining that strict compliance with safety procedures remains paramount in the aviation industry.