A routine morning arrival turned into a tense runway incident when a combination of mechanical failure and cockpit workload led to a loss of directional control moments after landing.
On May 31st 2024, a Jetstar Airways Airbus A320-200, registration VH-VFF, operating flight JQ-225 from Auckland to Christchurch, landed on Christchurch’s runway 02 at 07:45 local time. What followed shortly after touchdown, however, was far from routine.
As the aircraft slowed to low speed, it began to veer to the right, eventually departing the paved surface approximately 2,050 meters down the runway. The jet rolled briefly onto the grass, striking runway edge lights before returning to the runway and coming to a stop near its right-hand edge. Despite the dramatic sequence, all passengers and crew remained unharmed, and the aircraft sustained only minor damage.
Passengers later recounted that the crew had informed them of a hydraulic issue affecting the aircraft prior to landing. According to those onboard, the right-hand engine appeared to spool up unexpectedly after touchdown, contributing to the deviation. Emergency services responded promptly, inspecting the aircraft as a precaution while passengers were reassured of their safety.
Initial statements from the airline pointed to a steering issue as the cause of the runway excursion, while New Zealand’s Transport Accident Investigation Commission opened a formal investigation.
Findings released shortly after the incident revealed that a low yellow hydraulic quantity indication had been received during descent, impairing nosewheel steering capability. However, it was the final report, published on March 18th 2026, that uncovered the deeper chain of events behind the incident.
Investigators determined that the yellow hydraulic system had failed during cruise due to a damaged hydraulic pipe. The pipe, unknowingly deformed during transit between Airbus facilities in Europe, had not been properly inspected before installation. Over time, cyclic fatigue worsened the defect, ultimately leading to its failure in flight. This failure not only disabled nosewheel steering but also rendered the No. 2 engine thrust reverser inoperative.
Faced with the malfunction, the captain opted to continue to Christchurch and attempt a runway exit using rudder and differential braking—an approach permitted under existing procedures but one that increased workload in an already demanding situation.
As the aircraft approached a rapid exit taxiway, a critical error occurred. The thrust levers were unintentionally advanced past idle into climb power, causing unexpected acceleration. Startled, the captain reacted by pulling the levers back into maximum reverse. This resulted in asymmetric thrust—forward thrust from one engine and reverse thrust from the other—creating a powerful turning force.
The aircraft veered off the runway, crossed the grass, and then re-entered the paved surface before finally stopping.
The investigation highlighted several systemic risks, including inadequate inspection of critical components, procedural gaps in handling hydraulic failures, and the lack of specific guidance for using differential braking without nosewheel steering. It also pointed out the potential for unintended thrust lever movements on the ground—an issue that could have serious consequences if not properly managed.
In the end, what could have escalated into a far more severe حادث was contained through a combination of pilot recovery and structural resilience, leaving behind a powerful case study in how small oversights and split-second decisions can converge during critical phases of flight.