Australian Aircraft Engineer Wins AU$40,000 Compensation After Singapore Airlines Dismissal Over Plane Reboot

An Australian aircraft maintenance engineer has secured AU$40,000 (approximately US$28,044) in compensation after being dismissed by Singapore Airlines contractor Heston MRO, following a dispute over whether powering down an aircraft to clear fault messages constituted a protocol violation. The fair work tribunal ruled the engineer would not be reinstated but awarded damages, finding his actions aligned with standard maintenance practice.

The Incident and Initial Investigation

The Brisbane-based engineer, employed as a licensed aircraft maintenance manager from May 2023 through December 2025, encountered multiple fault diagnostic messages on a Singapore Airlines aircraft before a scheduled flight. With pilot agreement, he performed a power down and power up cycle to clear the errors—a procedure he described as equivalent to resetting a smartphone to resolve software glitches. The action successfully eliminated the fault messages and required only a 17-minute flight delay.

Singapore Airlines objected to the reboot, claiming the engineer had acted on "experience and instinct" rather than following established protocols. The carrier cited "customer dissatisfaction" resulting from the delay and formally requested that Heston MRO withdraw the engineer's maintenance authority in November. However, Heston's initial investigation—signed off by multiple company leaders including the chief executive—concluded the engineer's actions constituted "standard practice" and did not violate procedures.

Conflicting Reports and Dismissal

Singapore Airlines rejected Heston's initial report, claiming it "was not an objective one." The company demanded a second investigation. Heston subsequently commissioned a review by a newly hired head of quality and safety, which reached the opposite conclusion—finding the engineer's actions a "reckless violation." The engineer was dismissed based on this second report, which he was not shown before his termination.

During the tribunal hearing, Heston's chief executive characterized the engineer as having an "attitude issue" and failing to follow protocols and manuals. However, she acknowledged her assessment was based partly on the engineer's failure to attend a meeting within four days of being requested, despite being rostered off during most of that period. The executive also conceded that losing Singapore Airlines' work would significantly impact the company's commercial operations.

Tribunal Decision and Outcome

The tribunal determined that reinstatement was not appropriate, partly because the engineer had undertaken additional shifts with a competing airline. However, the tribunal awarded compensation, recognizing the dismissal circumstances. The engineer's 25 years of industry experience and the contradictory nature of the two internal investigations weighed in his favor, alongside questions about the fairness of the dismissal process.