The head of safety at Aer Lingus has told a tribunal an engine repair report posted online by a whistleblower pilot in the wake of an alleged toxic fume leak on a jet was “not intended for public consumption”.
Conor Nolan, director of safety and security at the airline was under cross-examination for a second day on Friday at the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
The airline is defending statutory complaints alleging penalisation under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and the Unfair Dismissals Act by pilot, Tom O’Riordan.
The airline contends Mr O’Riordan, who had 13,000 hours’ command experience on heavy jets when he was dismissed in September 2024, “defamed” the airline on social media while off work sick in the wake of an incident on board an empty passenger jet the summer before.
RM Block
Mr O’Riordan’s lawyer says the pilot believed safety issues were being “whitewashed” and “covered over” by Aer Lingus and that he was entitled to take to social media out of concern for public safety.
Mr Nolan said the number one engine on an Airbus A320 jet, EI-DEN – referred to in the proceedings as “Delta Echo November” – was removed and sent to a Madrid workshop following a reported fume leak on June 5th, 2023, during an empty repositioning flight into Dublin Airport, with Mr O’Riordan in command.
Mr O’Riordan’s position is that he was poisoned by toxic fumes during the incident.
A report on the repairs to the engine dated October 24th, 2023 – referred to as the “Iberia report” – was opened to the hearing on Friday.
David Byrnes BL, for the complaiant the report noted “traces of oil … around the rear area of the fan frame” of a compressor and put it to Mr Nolan that it was “the same compressor that’s used to pressurise the cabin”.
“In a very general sense. No one’s disputing there was a leak of oil and it created a smell,” Mr Nolan said.
Mr Byrnes asked Mr Nolan whether he had complained to the company that his personal reputation was damaged by Mr O’Riordan’s social media posts.
“No,” the witness said.
“And why not?” counsel asked.
“This matter has taken up so much of my time that would be better devoted to other management duties in my portfolio. I was aware the posting of internal material was being addressed through the appropriate channels,” Mr Nolan said.
“There’s no evidence of any damage to your reputation, is there?”
“No,” Mr Nolan said.
Asked what damage Mr O’Riordan had done to Aer Lingus’s reputation, Mr Nolan said: “The publication of confidential internal safety engineering and operational data, viewed out of context by unqualified members of the public, certainly has the potential to damage the reputation of the organisation and trust in our brand.
He said he was referring to the report on the repairs to the engine removed from the jet Mr O’Riordan had been flying.
“In the wrong hands, it could be misconstrued as presenting some sort of safety risk,” the witness said. “This is a highly technical document that’s not intended for public consumption ... there’s potential it could be misconstrued by members of the public, and specifically the concern I would have would be that customers might see this,” he said.
“Isn’t the customer entitled to know whether there’s a seal in a compressor that’s defective and that they’re putting themselves at risk of exposure to fumes in the cabin?” counsel asked.
“The customer is clearly entitled to expect the aircraft is airworthy,” Mr Nolan said.
“Are they entitled to know what risk there is of exposure to fumes coming into the plane from defective seals, worn seals with oil leaks – isn’t a customer entitled to know that, so they can decide themselves?” Mr Byrnes continued.
“No,” Mr Nolan said.
“They’re not?” counsel said.
“No,” the witness said.
Adjudication officer Aideen Collard has adjourned the case to January 2026.
Mr Byrnes is instructed by solicitor Setanta Landers in the case. Tom Mallon BL is for the airline, instructed by Katie Rooney of Arthur Cox.
