Narrative:

There has been mention by management that it has been observed that the ram air turbines have been found to have been stowed incorrectly. This incorrect stowage is causing the ram air turbine to not drop out of the fuselage cutout properly when deployed. This scenario has recently been discovered at the maintenance hangar where a RAT was deployed and stuck; unable to fall out of and free from the fuselage cutout. This incident like others before it causes damage to the ram air turbine blades. With this being a known issue and affecting multiple aircraft recently I find it hard to fathom that a fleet campaign has not been implemented to inspect for the proper positioning of the RAT blades in the stowed position. This would help confirm that if a RAT is indeed needed for an in-flight electrical emergency that it will deploy as designed and possibly save lives. It would appear that the only concern to date is how do we prevent future damage and cost savings. While these are both valid concerns I believe it is of greater importance to make sure that the current RAT's in service are properly stowed. It should also be noted that the stowing of the RAT is deemed to require a second set of eyes according to the job cards; but if a RAT is deployed and stowed at any other time it is not required to have a second set of eyes. Due to recent events I feel that the stowing of the RAT should be considered as a candidate for the required inspection item list. There has been a service bulletin from [the manufacturer] alerting operators to the importance of the RAT retraction procedure.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Maintenance Inspector reported that some Ram Air Turbines (RAT) are not properly stowed; when this occurs the RAT is unable to deploy.

Narrative: There has been mention by management that it has been observed that the Ram Air Turbines have been found to have been stowed incorrectly. This incorrect stowage is causing the Ram Air Turbine to not drop out of the fuselage cutout properly when deployed. This scenario has recently been discovered at the maintenance hangar where a RAT was deployed and stuck; unable to fall out of and free from the fuselage cutout. This incident like others before it causes damage to the Ram Air Turbine blades. With this being a known issue and affecting multiple aircraft recently I find it hard to fathom that a fleet campaign has not been implemented to inspect for the proper positioning of the RAT blades in the stowed position. This would help confirm that if a RAT is indeed needed for an in-flight electrical emergency that it will deploy as designed and possibly save lives. It would appear that the only concern to date is how do we prevent future damage and cost savings. While these are both valid concerns I believe it is of greater importance to make sure that the current RAT's in service are properly stowed. It should also be noted that the stowing of the RAT is deemed to require a second set of eyes according to the job cards; but if a RAT is deployed and stowed at any other time it is not required to have a second set of eyes. Due to recent events I feel that the stowing of the RAT should be considered as a candidate for the Required Inspection Item List. There has been a Service Bulletin from [the manufacturer] alerting operators to the importance of the RAT retraction procedure.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.