If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user


From SKYbrary Wiki
Name ATR-72
Manufacturer ATR
Body Narrow
Wing Fixed Wing
Position High wing
Tail T-tail
WTC Medium
Type code L2T
Engine Turboprop
Engine count Multi
Position (Front) Wing leading mounted
Landing gear Tricycle retractable
Mass group 3

Manufacturered as:

AI(R) ATR-72




Turboprop regional airliner. In service since 1989. Stretched larger capacity version of ATR-42. Some versions with different performance. Latest model AT-72-500 (redesignated 210) with six bladed propellers since 1997. View manufacturer's factsheet.

Technical Data

Wing span 27.1 m88.911 ft
Length 27.2 m89.239 ft
Height 7.7 m25.262 ft
Powerplant 200: 2 x 2.160 SHP PWC PW124B turboprops with 4 blade propellers.

210: 2 x 2.500 SHP PWC PW127E turboprops with 6 blade propellers.

Engine model Pratt & Whitney Canada PW100

Performance Data

Take-Off Initial Climb
(to 5000 ft)
Initial Climb
(to FL150)
Initial Climb
(to FL240)
MACH Climb Cruise Initial Descent
(to FL240)
(to FL100)
Descent (FL100
& below)
V2 (IAS) 110 kts IAS 140 kts IAS 210 kts IAS 210 kts MACH TAS 275 kts MACH IAS 260 kts IAS kts Vapp (IAS) 120 kts
Distance 1500 m ROC 1500 ft/min ROC 1000 ft/min ROC 1000 ft/min ROC ft/min MACH ROD ft/min ROD 1500 ft/min MCS 170 kts Distance 1100 m
MTOW 2150021,500 kg
21.5 tonnes
Ceiling FL250 ROD ft/min APC B
WTC M Range 15001,500 nm
2,778,000 m
2,778 km
9,114,173.235 ft

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving AT72

  • AT72 / B732, vicinity Queenstown New Zealand, 1999 (On 26 July 1999, an ATR 72-200 being operated by Mount Cook Airlines on a scheduled passenger flight from Christchurch to Queenstown entered the destination CTR without the required ATC clearance after earlier cancelling IFR and in marginal day VMC due to snow showers, separation was then lost against a Boeing 737-200 being operated IFR by Air New Zealand on a scheduled passenger flight from Auckland to Queenstown which was manoeuvring visually (circling) after making an offset VOR/DME approach in accordance with a valid ATC clearance.)
  • AT72 / JS32, en-route, north east of Jonkoping Sweden, 2012 (On 20 June 2012, an ATR72-200 level at FL140 and a climbing opposite direction Jetstream 32 received and correctly responded to co-ordinated TCAS RAs after ATC error. The controller had not noticed visual MTCD and STCA alerts and had attempted to continue active controlling after a TCAS RA declaration. The Investigation observed that the ineffectiveness of visual conflict alerts had previously featured in a similar event at the same ACC and that the ANSP had advised then that its addition was planned. TCAS RA response controller training was considered to be in need of improvement to make it more effective.)
  • AT72, Copenhagen Denmark, 2013 (On 14 January 2013, selection of the power levers to ground idle after an ATR 72-200 touchdown at Copenhagen produced only one of the two expected low pitch indications. As the First Officer called 'one low pitch' in accordance with SOP, the Captain selected both engines into reverse. He was unable to prevent the resultant veer off the runway. After travelling approximately 350 metres on grass alongside the runway as groundspeed reduced, the runway was regained. A propeller control fault which would have prevented low pitch transition on the right engine was recorded but could not subsequently be replicated.)
  • AT72, Dresden Germany, 2002 (On 5 March 2002, an ATR72-200 departed from runway 22 at Dresden in good visibility at night aligned with the edge lights of the runway without the crew apparently being aware of their error. Damage to both the edge lights and the aircraft was subsequently discovered. The Investigation attributed the error to the crew, concluding that a contributing factor had been that the correctly promulgated and lit runway width represented a reduction from a previously greater width with the surface now outside the runway being of a similar appearance to the actual runway surface.)
  • AT72, Helsinki Finland, 2012 (On 19 August 2012, the crew of a Flybe Finland ATR 72-200 approaching Helsinki failed to respond appropriately to a fault which limited rudder travel and were then unable to maintain directional control after touchdown with a veer off the runway then following. It was concluded that as well as prioritising a continued approach over properly dealing with the annunciated caution, crew technical knowledge in respect of the fault encountered had been poor and related training inadequate. Deficiencies found in relevant aircraft manufacturer operating documentation were considered to have been a significant factor and Safety Recommendations were made accordingly.)
  • AT72, Mumbai India, 2009 (On 10 November 2010, a Kingfisher Airlines ATR 72-200 made an excessively steep and unstabilised tailwind approach in light rain to runway 27 at Mumbai in visual daylight conditions. After touching down late, the aircraft was steered off the side of the runway when it became obvious that an overrun would otherwise occur. The Investigation found that ATC had failed to advise of water patches on the runway and aquaplaning had occurred. It also found that without aquaplaning, the available distance from the actual touchdown point would have been sufficient to stop the aircraft in.)
  • AT72, Shannon Ireland, 2011 (On 17 July 2011, an Aer Arann ATR 72 made a bounced daylight landing at Shannon in gusty crosswind conditions aggravated by the known effects of a nearby large building. The nose landing gear struck the runway at 2.3g and collapsed with subsequent loss of directional control and departure from the runway. The aircraft was rendered a hull loss but there was no injury to the 25 occupants. The accident was attributed to an excessive approach speed and inadequate control of aircraft pitch during landing. Crew inexperience and incorrect power handling technique whilst landing were also found to have contributed.)
  • AT72, Shannon Ireland, 2014 (On 26 February 2014, an ATR 72-202 which had been substituted for the ATR42 which usually operated a series of night cargo flights was being marshalled out of its parking position with a new flight crew on board when the left wing was in collision with the structure of an adjacent hangar. The Investigation found that the aircraft type had not been changed on the applicable flight plan and ATC were consequently unaware that the aircraft had previously been parked in a position only approved for the use by the usual smaller aircraft type.)
  • AT72, en-route, Mediterranean Sea near Palermo Italy, 2005 (On 6 August 2005, a Tuninter ATR 72-210 was ditched near Palermo after fuel was unexpectedly exhausted en route. The aircraft broke into three sections on impact and 16 of the 39 occupants died. The Investigation found that insufficient fuel had been loaded prior to flight because the flight crew relied exclusively upon the fuel quantity gauges which had been fitted incorrectly by maintenance personnel. It was also found that the pilots had not fully followed appropriate procedures after the engine run down and that if they had, it was at least possible that a ditching could have been avoided.)
  • AT72, en-route, southern Scotland UK, 2011 (On 15 March 2011, an ATR 72-200 on a non revenue positioning flight from Edinburgh to Paris CDG in night VMC with just the two pilots on board began to experience roll and directional control difficulties as the aircraft accelerated upon reaching the planned cruise altitude of FL230. A ‘PAN’ call was made to ATC and a return to Edinburgh was made with successful containment of the malfunctioning flying controls.)
  • AT72, vicinity Manchester UK, 2016 (On 4 March 2015, the flight crew of an ATR72 decided to depart from Manchester without prior ground de/anti icing treatment judging it unnecessary despite the presence of frozen deposits on the airframe and from rotation onwards found that manual forward control column input beyond trim capability was necessary to maintain controlled flight. The aircraft was subsequently diverted. The Investigation found that the problem had been attributable to ice contamination on the upper surface of the horizontal tailplane. It was considered that the awareness of both pilots of the risk of airframe icing had been inadequate.)
  • AT72, vicinity Pakse Laos, 2013 (On 16 October 2013, the crew of an ATR72-600 unintentionally flew their aircraft into the ground in IMC during a go around from an unsuccessful non precision approach at destination Pakse. The Investigation concluded that although the aircraft had followed the prescribed track, the crew had been confused by misleading FD indications resulting from their failure to reset the selected altitude to the prescribed stop altitude so that the decision altitude they had used for the approach remained as the selected altitude. Thereafter, erratic control of aircraft altitude had eventually resulted in controlled flight into terrain killing all on board.)
  • AT72, vicinity Stockholm Bromma Sweden, 2010 (On 21 August 2010 a Golden Air Flyg ATR 72 under ATC control in Class ‘C’ airspace was vectored close to three parachutists who had been dropped from a helicopter as part of an air show because of confusion between the ATC unit with responsibility for the incident airspace and the adjacent unit to which that responsibility had been delegated because it was nearest to the air show site. Additional confusion was caused by poor R/T practice by both ATC units and by different portrayal of a holding pattern on charts held by ATC and he flight crew.)
  • AT72, vicinity Tyumen Russian Federation, 2012 (On 2 April 2012, the crew of a UT Air ATR72-210 which had just taken off from Tyumen lost control of the aircraft and it crashed and caught fire killing or seriously injuring all occupants. The subsequent Investigation attributed the accident to the decision of the aircraft commander to take off without prior ground de icing when frozen deposits had accumulated on the airframe. However, a wide ranging systemic context for this was found, including ineffective regulatory requirements and a dysfunctional SMS at UT Air.)
  • AT75, vicinity Cork Ireland, 2014 (On 2 January 2014, the crew of an ATR 72-212A lost forward visibility due to the accumulation of a thick layer of salt deposits on the windshield whilst the aircraft was being radar positioned to an approach at Cork on a track which took it close to and at times over the sea in the presence of strong onshore winds. The Investigation concluded that the prevailing strong winds over and near to the sea in relatively dry air with little visible moisture present had been conducive to high concentrations of salt particles at low levels.)
  • AT76, vicinity Moranbah Queensland Australia, 2013 (On 15 May 2013, an ATR 72-600 on a visual approach to Moranbah descended sufficiently low in order to avoid entering cloud that a number of TAWS Warnings were activated. All were a consequence of the descent to below 500 feet agl at a high rate of descent which appeared not to have been appreciated by the flight crew. The Investigation found that the option of an available and suitable instrument approach procedure more appropriate for the prevailing low cloud base was ignored.)
  • SF34/AT72, Helsinki Finland, 2011 (On 29 December 2011 a Golden Air ATR 72 making a daylight approach to runway 22R at Helsinki and cleared to land observed a Saab 340 entering the runway and initiated a low go around shortly before ATC, who had observed the incursion, issued a go around instruction. The Investigation attributed the breach of clearance by the Latvian-operated Saab 340 primarily to poor CRM, a poor standard of R/T and inadequate English Language proficiency despite valid certification of the latter.)