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


ATR ATR-72-600

From SKYbrary Wiki

Name ATR-72-600
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:

ATR ATR-72-600

ATR ATR-72-600 ATR ATR-72-600 3D


Marketing name for the ATR 72-212A with different equipment fit, including new PW127M engines and an EFIS flight deck. View manufacturer's factsheet.

Technical Data

Wing span 27.05 m88.747 ft <br />
Length 27.17 m89.14 ft <br />
Height 7.65 m25.098 ft <br />
Powerplant 2 x 2,475 SHP PW127M 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) 115 kts IAS kts IAS kts IAS kts MACH TAS 275 kts MACH IAS kts IAS kts Vapp (IAS) 113 kts
Distance 1333 m ROC ft/min ROC ft/min ROC ft/min ROC ft/min MACH ROD ft/min ROD ft/min MCS kts Distance 915 m
MTOW 2300023,000 kg <br />23 tonnes <br /> kg Ceiling FL250 ROD ft/min APC B
WTC M Range 825825 nm <br />1,527,900 m <br />1,527.9 km <br />5,012,795.279 ft <br /> NM

Accidents & Serious Incidents involving AT76

  • A320 / AT76, Yangon Myanmar, 2017 (On 18 September 2017, a departing Airbus A320 was instructed to line up and wait at Yangon but not given takeoff clearance until an ATR72 was less than a minute from touchdown and the prevailing runway traffic separation standard was consequently breached. The Investigation found that the TWR controller had been a temporarily unsupervised trainee who, despite good daylight visibility, had instructed the A320 to line up and wait and then forgotten about it. When the A320 crew, aware of the approaching ATR72, reminded her, she “did not know what to do” and the trainee APP controller had to intervene.)
  • AT76, Canberra Australia, 2017 (On 19 November 2017, an ATR 72-600 being operated by a flight crew who were simultaneously undertaking a routine Line Check during revenue flying made a hard landing at Canberra which caused significant damage to the aircraft. The Investigation noted that the low experience First Officer had mismanaged the final stages of the approach so that it was no longer stabilised and that although the opportunity was there, the Captain had failed to intervene promptly enough to prevent the resulting hard landing. The Check Captain had assessed the imminent landing as likely to be untidy rather than unsafe.)
  • AT76, Canberra Australia, 2019 (On 25 September 2019, an ATR 72-600 about to depart from Canberra at night but in good visibility failed to follow its clearance to line up and take off on runway 35 and instead began its takeoff on runway 30. ATC quickly noticed the error and instructed the aircraft to stop which was accomplished from a low speed. The Investigation concluded that the 1030 metre takeoff distance available on runway 30 was significantly less than that required and attributed the crew error to attempting an unduly rushed departure for potentially personal reasons in the presence of insufficiently robust company operating procedures.)
  • AT76, Dublin Ireland, 2015 (On 23 July 2015, an ATR72-600 crew suspected their aircraft was unduly tail heavy in flight. After the flight they found that all passenger baggage had been loaded in the aft hold whereas the loadsheet indicated that it was all in the forward hold. The Investigation found that the person responsible for hold loading as specified had failed do so and that this failure had not been detected by the supervising Dispatcher who had certified the loadsheet presented to the aircraft Captain. Similar loading errors, albeit all corrected prior to flight, were found by the Operator to be not uncommon.)
  • AT76, Fez Morocco, 2018 (On 6 July 2018, an ATR 72-600 followed an unstable approach at Fez with a multiple-bounce landing including a tail strike which caused rear fuselage deformation. The aircraft then continued in operation and the damage was not discovered until first flight preparations the following day. The Investigation found that the Captain supervising a trainee First Officer as handling pilot failed to intervene appropriately during the approach and thereafter had failed to act responsibly. The context for poor performance was assessed as systemic weakness in both the way the ATR fleet was being run and in regulatory oversight of the Operator.)
  • AT76, Lisbon Portugal, 2016 (On 22 October 2016, an ATR 72-600 Captain failed to complete a normal night landing in relatively benign weather conditions and after the aircraft had floated beyond the touchdown zone, it bounced three times before finally settling on the runway in a substantially damaged condition. The Investigation noted that touchdown followed an unstabilised approach and that there had been little intervention by the First Officer. However, it tentatively attributed the Captain’s poor performance to a combination of fatigue at the end of a repetitive six-sector day and failure of the operator to provide adequate bounced landing recognition and recovery training.)
  • AT76, Surabaya Indonesia, 2014 (On 11 June 2014, an ATR 72-600 sustained substantial damage after hitting an object after touchdown at Surabaya but was able to taxi to post-flight parking. The Investigation found that several sizeable items of equipment had been left on the runway after it had been closed for overnight maintenance work and that no runway inspection had been carried out once the work was complete. It was concluded that departing aircraft had probably become airborne before reaching the reported location and that ATC had reacted with insufficient urgency after beginning to receive FOD reports from previous landing aircraft once daylight prevailed.)
  • AT76, en route, west-southwest of Sydney Australia, 2014 (On 20 February 2014, the mishandling of an ATR 72-600 during descent to Sydney involving opposite control inputs caused an elevator disconnect and a serious cabin crew injury. After recovery of control, the flight was without further event. Post flight inspection did not discover serious structural damage caused to the aircraft and it remained in service for a further five days. The complex Investigation took over five years and examined both the seriously flawed flight crew performance and the serious continued airworthiness failures. Despite extensive safety action in the meantime, the concluding report still made five type airworthiness-related safety recommendations.)
  • AT76, en-route, east of Cork Ireland, 2016 (On 24 August 2016, an ATR 72-600 experienced a static inverter failure which resulted in smoke and fumes which were identifiably electrical. Oxygen masks were donned, a MAYDAY declared and after the appropriate procedures had been followed, the smoke / fumes ceased. The Investigation noted a long history of capacitor failures affecting this unit which continued to be addressed by successive non-mandatory upgrades including another after this event. However, it was also found that there was no guidance on the re-instatement of systems disabled during the initial response to such events, in particular the total loss of AC electrical power.)
  • AT76, en-route, near Førde Airport Norway, 2016 (On 14 November 2016, an ATR72-600 crew lost control at FL150 in severe icing conditions. Uncontrolled rolls and a 1,500 feet height loss followed during an apparent stall. After recovery, the Captain announced to the alarmed passengers that he had regained control and the flight was completed without further event. The Investigation found that the crew had been aware that they had encountered severe icing rather than the forecast moderate icing but had attempted to continue to climb which took the aircraft outside its performance limitations. The recovery from the stall was non-optimal and two key memory actions were overlooked.)
  • AT76, vicinity Al Hoceima Morocco, 2018 (On 9 July 2018, an ATR 72-600 continued a non-precision approach to Al Hoceima below the procedure MDA without obtaining visual reference and subsequently struck the sea surface twice, both times with a vertical acceleration exceeding structural limits before successfully climbing away and diverting to Nador having reported a bird strike. The Investigation attributed the accident to the Captain’s repeated violation of operating procedures which included another descent below MDA without visual reference the same day and the intentional deactivation of the EGPWS without valid cause. There was significant fuselage structure and landing gear damage but no occupant injuries.)
  • AT76, vicinity Dublin Ireland, 2016 (On 2 September 2016, an ATR72-600 cleared to join the ILS for runway 28 at Dublin continued 800 feet below cleared altitude triggering an ATC safe altitude alert which then led to a go around from around 1000 feet when still over 5nm from the landing runway threshold. The Investigation attributed the event broadly to the Captain’s inadequate familiarity with this EFIS-equipped variant of the type after considerable experience on other older analogue-instrumented variants, noting that although the operator had provided simulator differences training, the -600 was not classified by the certification authority as a type variant.)
  • AT76, vicinity Taipei Songshan Taiwan, 2015 (On 4 February 2015, a TransAsia Airways ATR 72-600 crashed into the Keelung River in central Taipei shortly after taking off from nearby Songshan Airport after the crew mishandled a fault on one engine by shutting down the other in error. They did not realise this until recovery from loss of control due to a stall was no longer possible. The Investigation found that the initial engine fault occurred before getting airborne and should have led to a low-speed rejected take-off. Failure to follow SOPs and deficiencies in those procedures were identified as causal.)
  • MD83 / AT76, Isfahan Iran, 2018 (On 21 January 2018, a McDonnell Douglas MD-83 which had just landed on one of the two parallel runways at Isfahan, entered the roll out end of the other one and began taxiing on it in the opposite direction to an ATR72-600 which was about to touch down at the other end of the same runway. The Investigation found that the MD83 had failed to follow its taxi clearance but also that the TWR controller involved had failed to instruct the conflicting ATR-72 to go around, a requirement that was not optional despite the 4397 metre runway length.)