Engineer sacked after rebooting Singapore Airlines plane, causing 17-minute delay

An aircraft maintenance worker who powered down a plane to clear errors before take-off has failed to win back his job after causing a 17-minute delay, with the country’s fair work umpire saying this was partly because he had been working extra shifts with a competitor.

The Brisbane man, who was a full-time licensed aircraft maintenance manager from May 2023 to December 2025, was employed by Heston MRO, a line maintenance services provider to 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 – based on “mishandling incidents”.

The man, who had seen multiple “fault diagnostic messages” popping up before a scheduled flight, had decided to carry out an aircraft “power down” and “power up” – agreed to by the pilots – which ultimately led to those faults being cleared.

Singapore Airlines argued it was unnecessary to power down the aircraft for this particular fault, and that the man had acted on “experience and instinct” rather than protocol, leading to a delay of 17 minutes and “customer dissatisfaction”.

The man, who had worked in the industry for more than 25 years, argued his actions were “normal procedure”, likening it to resetting a phone to clear errors, and argued that it helped to reduce the pilots’ workload, prevented further delays and made for a safer flight.

The initial investigation into the incident, which was signed off by multiple leaders within Heston MRO, including the chief executive, found the man’s actions were “standard practice” and did not violate procedures.

Singapore Airlines rejected the report, alleging the report “was not an objective one”. This led to a review of the initial report by a newly hired head of quality and safety, which concluded the man’s actions had been a “reckless violation”.

This second report and revised finding was not provided to the man before his dismissal.

Heston MRO chief executive Asta Zirlyte said during the hearing that the man had an “attitude issue” and did not follow protocols, regulations or maintenance manuals. However, she admitted her view about his “attitude issues” was based on the man not attending a meeting within four days of being requested to despite the man being rostered off on most of those days.

The chief executive also accepted that the company’s commercial operations would be affected if it lost Singapore Airline’s work, but rejected the suggestion that the initial report into the man’s conduct was changed to maintain the company’s relationship with the airline.

The man was involved in four investigations during his time with the company, but he was cleared of wrongdoing for most of them and was not formally disciplined.

However, he was also pulled up by his employer for working casual shifts for Virgin Airlines without permission, which the company said breached its rules and compliance requirements to monitor its staff fatigue levels.

The man said these shifts never clashed with his full-time job, and that he always took a break of at least 10 hours before and after these additional shifts. He also claimed his work with Virgin made him a better engineer.

Fair Work commissioner Chris Simpson said the man was not acting maliciously, intending to cause delay or disregarding safety when he powered down the plane, and that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the initial investigation had been biased towards the man.

“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.”

The commissioner also said the company could not rely on earlier, separate incidents which had already been dealt with, and which the man was not warned about, to dismiss him.

While Simpson said there was no evidence the man’s casual work with Virgin affected his performance or caused fatigue or safety issues, he said the man’s failure to inform his employer breached his employment contract. The company could have considered taking disciplinary action against the man, Simpson said, but his employment with Virgin was not a valid reason for dismissal.

Simpson also noted the man was not notified of the reasons for dismissal before the decision was made, nor given a genuine opportunity to respond, and that the evidence failed to show there had been serious misconduct, or that the findings of the initial investigation had been revised with a proper basis.

The commission did not order Heston MRO to reinstate the man, largely because of his undisclosed casual work with Virgin which Simpson said had caused “damage to the level of trust and confidence in the [employment] relationship”. However, he ordered the company to pay the man more than $40,000 in compensation.

Clear Employment Relations head of advisory service, Akile Numan, who represented the man, said the decision was a reminder that employers needed to follow proper process when pursuing a dismissal. “Even in a safety critical industry, safety concerns do not displace procedural fairness,” she said.

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

Get workplace news, advice and perspectives to help make your job work for you. Sign up for our weekly Thank God it’s Monday newsletter.