Source : Perth Now news
An Airbus reset that delayed a Singapore Airlines flight by 17 minutes has cost an aviation maintenance company more than $41,000 after the Fair Work Commission found a veteran engineer was unfairly dismissed.
Mohammad Israfel Khan was a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer (LAME) with a quarter-century in aviation.
He was sacked by Heston MRO, an aviation maintenance company that services aircraft for airlines, after powering down and restarting an Airbus A350 at Brisbane Airport on November 2 last year while investigating recurring fault messages.
The reset cleared four diagnostic faults, but Singapore Airlines later complained the shutdown was unnecessary and blamed it for delaying the flight’s departure by 17 minutes.
The airline then demanded Mr Khan’s maintenance credentials be removed from its operation.
What followed, according to a decision by commissioner Chris Simpson, was a sharp split inside Heston MRO over whether Mr Khan had done anything wrong at all.
Mr Khan told the hearing he made the call after trying other troubleshooting steps requested by Singapore maintenance watch. He said the power cycle was a practical measure, likening the action to “resetting your phone if you have a fault in order to remove it”.
Mr Khan maintained the reset was carried out with the agreement of the pilots to ease their workload, reduce further delay and support a safer flight.
He also said he had performed the same reset on the same aircraft the previous night without complaint from either the airline or Heston MRO.
An initial internal investigation backed that view.
Heston MRO deputy quality and safety manager Lindsay-Ann Dickson reviewed the incident using the aviation industry’s “just culture decision tree” and recorded “nil findings and nil observations”. She did not recommend dismissal and found no malicious intent.
“Did (he) knowingly violate procedures? No, he didn’t,” Ms Dickson said.
“There was no procedures that he violated by doing that process. It is a standard practice through aviation.”
Ms Dickson also found the incident met the industry “substitution test”, meaning another engineer in the same circumstances would likely have done the same thing, making it a “no blame error”.
Then head of quality and safety Andrew Lockett agreed with the findings, and chief executive Asta Zirlyte signed off on the report before it was sent to the airline.
But Singapore Airlines rejected the report. Ms Zirlyte later gave evidence the airline had “teased” Heston MRO for producing a “very LAME-friendly version” of the investigation.
The matter was then handed to incoming head of quality and safety Manoj Sam, who started on November 5. Without interviewing Mr Khan or obtaining his account, Mr Sam reclassified the incident as a “reckless violation”.
He later admitted under questioning that he believed it was possible to conclude an employee had acted recklessly without first asking about their intention.
The commission found the dismissal process was deeply flawed.
On December 1, Mr Sam contacted Mr Khan to arrange a face-to-face meeting, describing the matter as urgent but not telling him he had already made a “reckless violation” finding.
Mr Khan was on rostered days off and suggested meeting on Friday, December 5, his next scheduled shift. When he arrived at head office that day, he believed he was attending a discussion about restoring his Singapore Airlines credentials. Instead, he was dismissed.
HR business partner Lynne Grant admitted the decision had been made before the meeting began and she had arrived carrying a pre-prepared termination letter. She also accepted Mr Khan was never given a show-cause letter, was not told termination was being considered and was not offered the opportunity to have a support person present.
Ms Grant further conceded “any comments would most likely have not made any difference” to the outcome.
When Mr Khan later contacted Ms Zirlyte to explain his side, he was told “the decision was final”.
Heston MRO also pointed to a separate issue after the dismissal, arguing Mr Khan had been working casual shifts for Virgin Australia on his days off without written approval, creating a fatigue management risk.
However, that argument carried little weight before the commission. Ms Grant admitted there was no evidence Mr Khan’s work with Virgin had ever caused a safety incident, while Mr Sam conceded there was no evidence Mr Khan had ever reported for a Heston MRO shift in a fatigued state.
The company’s witnesses also accepted they had relied on post-termination text messages from 2026 to suggest Mr Khan had worked double shifts while on duty in 2025. Mr Khan said he always left a substantial break between shifts, often more than 24 hours, to manage fatigue.
In his decision, Mr Simpson found Heston MRO’s case for summary dismissal was “unclear and unsatisfactory”.
“The dismissal was unjust because the alleged serious misconduct was not established on the evidence,” Mr Simpson ruled.
He added that Heston MRO had rejected its own original, expert safety report “without a proper basis” and the possible long-term impact on Mr Khan’s professional standing was “considerable”.
Mr Khan was not reinstated. Mr Simpson said there had been an irretrievable loss of trust and confidence, pointing to Mr Khan’s failure to disclose his secondary employment, which prevented Heston MRO from properly monitoring fatigue management compliance.
He also found Singapore Airlines’ refusal to restore Mr Khan’s maintenance authorisation created “practical difficulties” for any return.
Instead, Heston MRO was ordered to pay Mr Khan $41,203.65 in gross compensation, plus a 12 per cent superannuation contribution.
