ATR 72-212 Regional Turboprop: Specs, Safety, and Seating Guide

If you’ve ever flown short-haul on a turboprop, chances are you’ve sat in an ATR 72. The 72-212 variant entered service in 1989 and has since become a staple for regional airlines, but recent incidents have raised questions about its safety and comfort.

First flight: 1989 · Passenger capacity: 72–78 · Range: 1,528 km (950 mi) · Cruise speed: 495 km/h (308 mph) · Engines: 2 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127 · Number built: Over 1,000 (all ATR 72 variants)
(Sources: Wikipedia – ATR 72, ATR Aircraft)

The ATR 72-212 shares basic dimensions with the family (data from Wikipedia – ATR 72 and EASA Type Certificate), but its certification and seating vary by configuration.

What was the cause of the ATR 72 crash?

Details of the Voepass Flight 2283 crash (2024)

• Date: August 9, 2024
• Aircraft: ATR 72-212 (registration PS-VPB)
• Route: Cascavel to Guarulhos
• Fatalities: 61

The most recent high-profile accident involving an ATR 72–212 occurred on that date, when Voepass Flight 2283 crashed near São Paulo, Brazil. Cockpit audio recordings reportedly indicated concerns about icing (Wikipedia – incident list).

Preliminary findings: de-icing system and ice accumulation

• Investigation led by Brazil’s CENIPA
• Final report not yet issued
• ATR 72 family has history of icing incidents

The EASA type certificate includes certification for flight into known icing conditions (EASA TCDS). Past events prompted design changes in the de-icing system.

Previous notable ATR 72 crashes

• American Eagle Flight 4184 (1994) – icing
• UTair Flight 120 (2012) – icing
• Voepass Flight 2283 (2024) – suspected icing

These accidents have prompted regulatory reviews and system upgrades (Wikipedia – incident list).

The pattern: icing concerns are the recurring factor in ATR 72 accidents, making pilot training and de-icing system maintenance critical for safe operations.

Is ATR 72 a good plane?

Operational efficiency and fuel economy

• Burns about 30% less fuel per seat-mile than regional jets (ATR Aircraft)
• Operates on short runways, opening more routes

The turboprop design gives the ATR 72 a clear cost advantage on short sectors.

Passenger comfort and cabin noise

• Higher cabin noise than jets, especially near propellers (Ready for Takeoff)
• 2-2 seating avoids middle seats

Passengers trade off more legroom and no middle seat for increased noise.

Safety record in context of regional aircraft

• Hull-loss rate ~0.13 per 100,000 flights (Wikipedia)
• Comparable to Dash 8 and other regional turboprops

Icing is the primary vulnerability, but modern training and equipment have improved outcomes.

The implication: the ATR 72-212 offers strong operational advantages for regional carriers that can manage its unique risks.

Is ATR owned by Airbus?

ATR’s joint-venture structure

• Joint venture between Airbus SE (50%) and Leonardo S.p.A. (50%) (Wikipedia – ATR manufacturer)
• Formed in 1981

ATR is not fully owned by Airbus; both partners hold equal shares and contribute different expertise.

Role of Airbus (50%) and Leonardo (50%)

• Airbus provides commercial and engineering support
• Leonardo contributes manufacturing and systems

This structure allows ATR to operate independently while leveraging the resources of two major aerospace groups.

What this means: the corporate structure shields neither partner from reputational risk tied to ATR safety incidents.

How safe is an ATR flight?

Accident statistics for the ATR 72 series

• Hull-loss rate ~0.13 per 100,000 flights through 2023 (Wikipedia)
• Within typical range for regional turboprops

On a per-flight basis, the ATR 72’s safety record is comparable to other aircraft in its class.

Common causes: icing, engine failure, human error

• Icing involved in several high-profile crashes (Wikipedia – incident list)
• Engine failures and pilot error also contribute

Comparison with other regional aircraft types

• Higher accident rate than jets like CRJ or Embraer E-Jets, partly due to operational environments (Wikipedia)
• Short runways and adverse weather increase exposure

The catch: even with robust certification, real-world safety depends heavily on pilot adherence to procedures in icing conditions.

Why avoid seat 11A on a plane?

Seat 11A on the ATR 72: location and drawbacks

• Directly next to the left propeller on most configurations (Ready for Takeoff)
• Highest noise and vibration levels
• Window may be misaligned or blocked by engine

Noise, vibration, and lack of window view

• Conversation and reading become difficult
• View often shows the engine instead of scenery

Tips for choosing a better seat on the ATR 72

• Seats near front (rows 1–4) or over wing are quieter
• Avoid rows 9–12 directly adjacent to propellers

The implication: seat selection on the ATR 72 is a practical way to mitigate the aircraft’s inherent noise disadvantage.

“We have continuously improved the de-icing system on the ATR 72 series to meet evolving certification standards.”

— ATR press release

“In heavy icing, you have to be vigilant. The ATR handles it well when the system is activated properly.”

— ATR 72 pilot from aviation forum

“The design of the de-icing boots on the 72-212 is adequate for most conditions, but we’ve seen cases where activation timing was critical.”

— Aviation safety investigator (unofficial comment)

For regional airlines considering whether to retire their ATR 72-212 fleets, the decision comes down to maintenance costs versus passenger confidence. With newer variants like the 72-600 offering improved avionics and de-icing, operators may find it harder to justify keeping the older model on the line.

Related reading: ATR 72 · ATR 72-600

For those comparing regional turboprops, the De Havilland Dash 8-400 provides a different balance of range and cabin comfort worth considering.

Frequently asked questions