An Air India Boeing 787 landed in Birmingham with the RAT deployed

airlive.net ^ | October 05, 2025 | Contributors

[Red Badger]

An Boeing 787 Dreamliner was forced to deploy its emergency Ram Air Turbine during final approach to Birmingham Airport on Saturday. An Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner to Birmingham landed safely on Saturday, October 4, after the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deployed during its final approach.

The flight AI117 departed Amritsar Saturday, October 4 2025 for a 10-hour flight to Birmingham, UK. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner (registration VT-ANO) landed on runway 33 at 19:07 BST while pilots detected deployment of the Ram Air Turbine during final approach to Birmingham.

According to an Air India spokesperson, the aircraft’s electrical and hydraulic systems were operating normally despite the RAT deployment, with all parameters found normal throughout the approach and landing. “All parameters were found normal, and the aircraft performed a safe landing at Birmingham,” the spokesperson confirmed, emphasizing that safety protocols were strictly followed throughout the operation.

Air India flight AI117 on Saturday, October 4 2025 What is a Ram Air Turbine? The Ram Air Turbine is a small, fold-out windmill-like device designed to generate emergency power in case of failure of the main electrical or hydraulic systems. The RAT helps maintain control of essential flight instruments and hydraulic pressure, ensuring safe aircraft handling during emergencies.

The turbine deploys automatically or can be manually activated when aircraft systems detect loss of normal power generation. Once deployed, the device extends into the airstream, where wind force spins the turbine to generate emergency electrical and hydraulic power.

Significantly, Air India confirmed that the aircraft’s electrical and hydraulic systems were operating normally despite the RAT deployment. This suggests that while the emergency system activated, the primary aircraft systems continued functioning, potentially indicating a false trigger or precautionary deployment.

Aircraft Grounded for Inspection Following the incident, the aircraft was immediately grounded for detailed inspections to determine why the RAT deployed and to ensure the aircraft’s airworthiness before returning to service.

As a result of the aircraft being grounded for inspections, the return flight AI114 from Birmingham to Delhi was cancelled. Air India confirmed it is making alternative arrangements to accommodate affected passengers and minimize disruption, including rebooking on alternative flights and potentially deploying substitute aircraft to clear the backlog.

---

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Military/Veterans; Travel; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: aviation

[VTenigma]

Totally unrelated to today’s issue.

[libertylover]

Air India’s CVR proves neither pilot physically cycled the cut off switches- it was done automatically

First I've heard of that.

[dinodino]

Everything you said here is false...not sure where you got this info.

[delta7]

The Boeing 787 has experienced incidents of uncommanded fuel cut-off, which can occur due to issues with the aircraft’s advanced electronic systems, such as the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC). These incidents raise safety concerns and have prompted investigations into the aircraft’s electrical systems and fuel management protocols.
eplaneai.com Business Standard
Overview of Uncommanded Fuel Cut-Off in Boeing 787
Uncommanded fuel cut-off incidents in Boeing 787 aircraft have raised significant safety concerns. These events occur when the fuel supply to the engines is interrupted without pilot input, potentially leading to engine failure.

[Drago]

---

...IF it deploys when both engines are up and running, it is a computer fault….

---

The “RAT” can be deployed manually via a cockpit switch:

https://www.transglobaltraining.com/the-evolution-and-role-of-the-standby-power-system-in-the-boeing-787/

[dinodino]

The Air India incident was not an uncommanded fuel cutoff. The data recorders show a deliberate action to cut the fuel to both engines.

[Freedom4US]

Don’t they have an APU any longer? That little beanie head propeller thing doesn’t look like it would provide much juice, to be honest.

[Songcraft]

An alert passenger with a long camera stick pole was able to capture the event with their smartphone.


      

[Yo-Yo]

Don’t they have an APU any longer? That little beanie head propeller thing doesn’t look like it would provide much juice, to be honest.

Yes, they still have APUs, but the APU is not normally running during flight.

The Ram Air Turbine automatically deploys in seconds to provide essential electrical and hydraulic power to keep the aircraft flying while the APU is started, which can be a 30 second to 2 minute process, if it will start at all.

[Delta 21]

Its like training wheels for your Dreamliner.

Very nice.

[libertylover]

Air India’s CVR proves neither pilot physically cycled the cut off switches- it was done automatically at the worst time- in Take off configuration.

No. "Captain Steeeve" read right from the report, and someone moved the fuel cutoff switches to the OFF position; then in about 10 seconds they were switched back on.

If what you wrote was true, every Boeing aircraft in the world would be grounded immediately.

[zipper]

It’s understandable that the pilot’s union is very concerned about this RAT deployment. They’re not buying the “suicide” theory for the June 787 crash. Their position is to defend the pilots, as expected. They almost always do.

This most recent 787 flight, though it landed safely, had a fault in the Bus Power Control Unit (BPCU). Since the BPCU helps distribute power, a failure or glitch there could inadvertently cause backup systems like the RAT to trigger. This unit could have caused the RAT deployment that wasn’t supposed to happen, meaning the normal RAT deployment conditions were never met.

Because both incidents involve RAT deployment and possible electrical/fuel/engine issues, the union is concerned there could be a pattern or common defect.

The Indian gov’t investigators conclusively say the fuel switches were moved to cutoff, and then back on. Then again this means the wreckage showed the cutoff switches were in the “on” position, which means something else - maybe an ACARS message or even a “click” recorded on the CVR, as well as the copilot’s comment - led them to conclude the switches were turned “off” then back to “on”.

The copilot (at the controls) asked why the Captain turned them off, suggesting he must have visually seen them in the off position, or perhaps saw the Captain turn them off. The Captain denied turning them off.

I don’t see how the BPCU could have caused the June crash that killed all 260 people on board given what we heard on the CVR, and the conclusion that the cutoff switches were moved. These are lever-lock switches that aren’t connected to a solenoid. The CVR strongly suggests the f/o saw them in the cutoff position, and the Captain took an excessively long time to restore them to “on”. The delay was at least 10 seconds before the first cutoff switch was restored to “on”, and another 4 seconds for the other one. That’s an eternity during the takeoff phase.

I still lean towards suicide.