Singapore Airlines Engineer Wins A$41,203 After Unfair Dismissal Over 17-Minute Delay

Mohammad Israfel Khan, a Brisbane aircraft maintenance engineer, has won an unfair dismissal case against Heston MRO, the line maintenance provider for Singapore Airlines. Australia’s Fair Work Commission awarded him A$41,203.65 in compensation plus 12% superannuation after finding his December 2025 dismissal procedurally unfair. Khan was fired for rebooting a Singapore Airlines A350 aircraft system on November 2, 2025, which cleared four diagnostic faults but caused a 17-minute departure delay.

What Khan did and why he was fired

Khan performed a power reset of a Singapore Airlines A350 aircraft system while troubleshooting recurring fault messages on the tarmac at Brisbane Airport. The reset cleared four diagnostic faults but contributed to a 17-minute delay. Singapore Airlines complained about the action and requested Khan’s maintenance authorisation be removed. Heston MRO initially investigated and concluded Khan had not knowingly violated procedures, classifying the incident as a “no blame error”. However, a second investigation under a newly hired head of quality and safety reversed that finding, classifying Khan’s action as a “reckless violation”. Khan was dismissed in December 2025 without a show-cause notice or opportunity to respond.

The tribunal’s ruling and Khan’s compensation

Fair Work Commissioner Chris Simpson ruled the dismissal unjust, finding that Heston MRO failed to prove serious misconduct and denied Khan procedural fairness. The commission awarded Khan A$41,203.65 in gross compensation plus 12% superannuation, reflecting lost earnings from May 2023 to December 2025. The tribunal noted that Heston MRO’s own first investigation had exonerated Khan, undermining the airline’s case for serious misconduct. Khan was not reinstated, partly because of the breakdown in trust and because Singapore Airlines refused to restore his maintenance authorisation.

Why reinstatement was denied despite the win

Although the tribunal ruled Khan’s dismissal unfair, it declined to order his reinstatement. The commission found that Khan’s undisclosed casual work for Virgin Australia had irreparably damaged the employment relationship and trust with Heston MRO. The tribunal also noted that Singapore Airlines’ refusal to restore Khan’s maintenance authorisation made reinstatement impractical. Heston MRO has announced it will appeal the ruling.

The broader “just culture” debate in aviation

The case highlights tensions in aviation maintenance between strict procedural compliance and the need to distinguish between deliberate violations and honest errors made while solving problems. Khan argued his reboot was “normal procedure”, likening it to resetting a phone to clear errors, and that it reduced pilot workload and prevented further delays. The tribunal’s decision suggests that a short operational delay caused by a technical judgment call does not justify termination, even when procedures are not followed exactly. The ruling underscores the challenge airlines and maintenance providers face in applying “just culture” principles fairly.

Final Thoughts

Khan’s victory signals that Australian employment law protects workers from disproportionate dismissal, even in safety-critical industries. However, the refusal to reinstate him and Heston MRO’s appeal indicate the dispute is far from over. For Singapore Airlines and maintenance contractors, the case reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and consistent investigation standards.

FAQs

Disclaimer:

The content shared by Meyka AI PTY LTD is solely for research and informational purposes.  Meyka is not a financial advisory service, and the information provided should not be considered investment or trading advice.