Air India A320neo Involved in August Hydraulic Failure Identified as VT-EXO
The aircraft that lost pressure in all three hydraulic systems during an Air India flight in August has been identified as VT-EXO, according to registry records.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 4, 2026, 8:47 a.m. ET
This report went out within minutes of the first account of it. Early reports are provisional and are frequently revised; where sources disagree, both readings are given.
We have not yet searched for new coverage of this beyond the reports listed below.
Earlier reports
Sep 4, 2026, 8:47 a.m. ETFirst report
Air India A320neo Loses All Three Hydraulic Systems in Cruise; AAIB Reclassifies as Accident
An Air India Airbus A320neo, registration VT-EXO, experienced a loss of pressure in all three hydraulic systems while cruising at 36,000 feet on August 4, 2026, according to a report by aerotime.aero. The flight, AI2379, was en route from Phuket to Delhi with 145 people on board. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) reclassified the occurrence as an accident after assessing injuries, the report states.
The flight control system detected a loss of green hydraulic pressure at 04:02:43 UTC, followed by blue and yellow systems four seconds later. The autopilot disengaged at 04:02:48 UTC, and a stall warning sounded for two seconds at 04:02:51 UTC. The aircraft climbed 372 feet above its assigned level and then descended 292 feet below it, a total vertical excursion of 664 feet. Hydraulic pressure returned within seconds, restoring the flight control surfaces. The seat belt signs were off at the time. The crew continued to Delhi rather than diverting, landing at 05:30 UTC.
Twenty passengers and four cabin crew received medical attention after landing, with four people with serious injuries hospitalized, aerotime.aero reports. Cabin damage included cracked ceiling panels, dislodged overhead bin doors, a broken emergency exit handle, and a lavatory commode torn from its mounting. Neither the flight crew nor air traffic control reported adverse weather.
The captain's psychoactive substance screening returned a non-negative result, as did a confirmatory laboratory test on a blood sample; the co-pilot tested negative in both screenings. The AAIB issued an interim safety recommendation calling on the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to act against psychoactive substance abuse. Hydraulic components and fluid samples have been removed for testing. Airbus specialists, working through France's BEA, examined the aircraft from August 13 to 15, 2026.
The cause has not been determined. The AAIB, DGCA, and BEA are investigating. Registry records list VT-EXO as an Airbus twin-engine jet landplane registered in India; the registered owner is not identified in the report.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Reference data
From aircraft and geographic registries, not from the news sources. Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.
- Registration
- VT-EXO
- Type
- AIRBUS — twin-engine jet landplane
Sources
Revision history
- Version 14 Sept 2026, 12:52current
First published.
- Version 14 Sept 2026, 12:47current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.