If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user
Actions
ATR ATR-72-500
From SKYbrary Wiki
AT75
| Aircraft | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | ATR-72-500 | |||
| Manufacturer | ATR | |||
| Body | Narrow | |||
| Position | High wing | |||
| Tail | T-tail | |||
| WTC | Medium | |||
| APC | B | |||
| Type code | L2T | |||
| Engine | Turboprop | |||
| Engine count | Multi | |||
| Position | (Front) Wing leading mounted | |||
| Landing gear | Tricycle retractable | |||
| Mass group | 3 | |||
|
| ||||
ATR ATR-72-500
Description
A redesigned version of the AT-72-210. In service since 1997. View manufacturer's factsheet.
Technical Data
| Wing span | 27.05 m88.747 ft |
|---|---|
| Length | 27.17 m89.14 ft |
| Height | 7.65 m25.098 ft |
| Powerplant | 2 x 2.500 SHP PWC PW127F 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) |
Descent (to FL100) |
Descent (FL100 & below) |
Approach | ||||||||||
| V2 (IAS) | kts | IAS | kts | IAS | kts | IAS | kts | MACH | TAS | 276 kts | MACH | IAS | kts | IAS | kts | Vapp (IAS) | kts | ||
| Distance | 1223 m | ROC | ft/min | ROC | ft/min | ROC | ft/min | ROC | ft/min | MACH | ROD | ft/min | ROD | ft/min | MCS | kts | Distance | 1048 m | |
| MTOW | 2250022,500 kg 22.5 tonnes kg |
Ceiling | FL250 | ROD | ft/min | APC | B | ||||||||||||
| WTC | M | Range | 890890 nm 1,648,280 m 1,648.28 km 5,407,742.786 ft NM |
||||||||||||||||
Accidents & Serious Incidents involving AT75
- AT72, vicinity Manchester UK, 2016 (On 4 March 2016, the flight crew of an ATR72-500 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.)
- AT75 / B739, Medan Indonesia, 2017 (On 3 August 2017, a Boeing 737-900ER landing at Medan was in wing-to-wing collision as it touched down with an ATR 72-500 which had entered the same runway to depart at an intermediate point. Substantial damage was caused but both aircraft could be taxied clear. The Investigation concluded that the ATR 72 had entered the runway at an opposite direction without clearance after its incomplete readback had gone unchallenged by ATC. Controllers appeared not to have realized that a collision had occurred despite warnings of runway debris and the runway was not closed until other aircraft also reported debris.)
- AT75, Port Vila Vanuatu, 2018 (On 28 July 2018, a right engine compressor stall on an ATR72-500 bound for Port Vila followed by smoke in the passenger cabin led to a MAYDAY declaration and shutdown of the malfunctioning engine. The subsequent single engine landing at destination ended in a veer-off and collision with two unoccupied parked aircraft. The Investigation noted the disorganised manner in which abnormal/emergency and normal checklists had been actioned and found that the ‘Before Landing’ Checklist had not been run which resulted in the rudder limiter being left in high speed mode making single engine directional control on the ground effectively impossible.)
- AT75, en-route, near Almansa Spain, 2017 (On 9 September 2017, an ATR 72-500 crew temporarily lost control of their aircraft when it stalled whilst climbing in light to moderate icing conditions after violation of applicable guidance. Recovery was then delayed because the correct stall recovery procedure was not followed. A MAYDAY declaration due to a perception of continuing ‘control problems’ was followed by a comprehensively unstabilised ILS approach to Madrid. The Investigation concluded that the stall and its sequel were attributable to deficient flight management and inappropriate use of automation. The operator involved was recommended to implement corrective actions to improve the competence of its crews.)
- AT75, en-route, north of Visby Sweden, 2014 (On 30 November 2014, an ATR 72-500 suddenly experienced severe propeller vibrations whilst descending through approximately 7,000 feet with the power levers at flight idle. The vibrations "subsided" after the crew feathered the right engine propeller and then shut the right engine down. The flight was completed without further event. Severe damage to the right propeller mechanism was found with significant consequential damage to the engine. Several other similar events were found to have occurred to other ATR72 aircraft and, since the Investigation could not determine the cause, the EASA was recommended to impose temporary operating limitations pending OEM resolution.)
- AT75, vicinity Magong Taiwan, 2014 (On 23 July 2014, a TransAsia Airways ATR 72-500 crashed into terrain shortly after commencing a go around from a VOR approach at its destination in day IMC in which the aircraft had been flown significantly below the MDA without visual reference. The aircraft was destroyed and48 of the 58 occupants were killed. The Investigation found that the accident was entirely attributable to the actions of the crew and that it had occurred in a context of a systemic absence of effective risk management at the Operator which had not been adequately addressed by the Safety Regulator.)
- AT75, vicinity Nelson New Zealand, 2017 (On 9 April 2017, an ATR 72-500 crew were unable to obtain a right main landing gear locked down indication during their approach to Nelson and diverted to Palmerston North where the gear did not collapse on landing. The Investigation found the indication had been consequent on failure of both right main gear locking springs due to corrosion and that existing preventative maintenance procedures would not have detected this. It was also noted that contrary to the applicable procedures, the crew had cycled the gear several times which might, but in the event did not, have had significant effects.)
- AT75, vicinity Yasouj Iran, 2018 (On 18 February 2018, contact was lost with an ATR72-500 approaching Yasouj and two days later the wreckage of the aircraft was located in mountainous terrain with no sign of survivors. The flight recorders were eventually recovered and their data helped attribute the accident to descent below the designated minimum safe altitude followed by an encounter with severe mountain wave conditions which led to the crew losing control and a terrain impact which destroyed the aircraft and killed all its occupants. An apparently widespread failure to recognise the potential risk of severe mountain wave encounters was also found.)