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
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.

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 (AI LOS AGC HF) (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 (LOS HF) (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 (RE HF AW) (On 14 July 2013, selection of the power levers to ground idle after an ATR 72 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 (RE HF) (On 5 March 2002, following the departure from runway 22 at Dresden in good visibility and light winds at night of an Aerospatiale ATR 72-200 being operated by an unrecorded airline on a domestic scheduled passenger fight from Dresden to Stuttgart, the airport operator found a number of damaged runway edge lights. Inspection of the aircraft after the flight disclosed damage to both nose landing gear tyres, one of which was deflated, and also found evidence of glass fragment impact with the fuselage and propellers, glass splinters in all landing gear bays and noted that the lower anti-collision light had been destroyed. There was no reported awareness of an incident on the part of the 27 passengers and two cabin crew.)
  • AT72, Helsinki Finland, 2012 (RE HF AW) (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.)