Firefighter pilot fired over flight incident wins unfair dismissal claim

Following termination for his “airmanship” and not engaging “positively” in safety processes, an experienced pilot who suffered airborne damage during aerial firefighting efforts won his unfair dismissal case.

Stewart Khouri is an experienced helicopter pilot with 3,100 hours of experience operating rotary-wing aircraft.

Following an unblemished record and nearly six months of service at Coulson Aviation, on 10 March 2025, Khouri was involved in a flight incident in which he damaged the helicopter that he was operating in efforts to tackle a bushfire at Canning Peak from the air.

The next day, he was stood down on pay, and, by 14 May 2025, Khouri was issued a letter of termination for reputational risk and damage caused to the aircraft that he was operating.

Fair Work Commission deputy president Bryce Cross, having found inconsistencies in Coulson Aviation’s reasons for dismissal, granted Khouri his unfair dismissal claim.

He ordered his employer to reinstate Khouri, provide him with compensation for lost wages and the continuity of service.

Significant aircraft damage

In the midst of the Tasmanian bushfires of 2025 on 10 March, Khouri was tasked with flying his helicopter to aid in fire suppression at a bushfire site at Canning Peak in western Tasmania.

Following failures to jettison the water bucket from his helicopter, the aircraft suffered significant damage to its fuselage structure. Khouri left the aircraft unscathed.

In the investigation that ensued, Khouri said the incident was caused by “human performance limitations”, which included an inability to focus on managing the situation and his positioning at the time.

On 14 May 2025, Khouri was issued a termination letter, which stated: “The damage to the aircraft has created reputational risk to Coulson Aviation Australia as well as our customer.”

He was fired on the spot.

Unfair dismissal

Coulson Aviation submitted that Khouri’s dismissal was a result of poor “airmanship” and not engaging “positively” in safety processes, despite these factors not being disclosed in his termination letter.

Cross found that Khouri’s dismissal was invalid and unfair, as he was not provided an opportunity to respond to these allegations.

In addition, the commission found that up until the termination letter, Khouri had received positive indications as to his return to work and was told that the investigation was not punitive, he had not been negligent, there was no criticism about what he had done, and they were happy to send him back to duties on the next shift on 13 March 2025.

In light of the inconsistent reasoning behind Coulson Aviation’s dismissal of Khouri, Cross accepted Khouri’s unfair dismissal application, awarding him reinstatement, compensation for lost wages, and continuity of service.

The case citation: Mr Stewart Khouri v Coulson Aviation (Australia) Pty Ltd (U2025/9320).