With the Continued Airworthiness Notification and with the updated statement https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1fZ4GTW0Ac4Qsr.jpg in contrast with EASA 2019-0051-E it is crystal clear the EASA and the FAA disagrees on the airworthiness of the 737 MAX at this time. Had this happened before?


It seems FAA and EASA did disagree since 2016 about 737max certification, and not just after the crashes. EASA certification was conditioned by training and more information to the pilots, which hasn’t been done.

Please refer to the following website:


You read the following:

The European Aviation and Space Agency (EASA) certified the plane as safe in part because it said additional procedures and training would “clearly explain” to pilots the “unusual” situations in which they would need to manipulate a rarely used manual wheel to control, or “trim,” the plane’s angle.

You may also read about EASA:

The undated EASA certification document, available online, was issued in February 2016, an agency spokesman said:

It specifically noted that at speeds greater than 230 knots (265mph, 425kph) with flaps retracted, pilots might have to use the wheel in the cockpit’s centre console rather than an electric thumb switch on the control yoke.

So when agencies give their approval it doesn’t mean the approval conditions are the same, it was not the case since the origine for the 737max, and not just after the crashes.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is the type of answer we're looking for, @user40476! It's got details, quotes and a source for the quotes! Thank you!! $\endgroup$ – FreeMan May 30 '19 at 12:27

Yes, it happens with most aircraft when they are first certified. The dates of certification by the FAA and EASA would rarely be identical, so there is some period where a new airplane is considered airworthy by one, but not the other. As you are asking about the 737, the EASA TCDS shows that it was first certified by the FAA on Dec 15, 1967, and has an EASA validity date of Jan 23, 1968.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Nobody is denying EASA certification. The quote is saying that additional training was required for pilots by EASA. FAA did not request that specific training. $\endgroup$ – user40476 May 30 '19 at 17:04
  • $\begingroup$ You misunderstood my answer. They disagree about the airworthiness. One had certified it as airworthy, the other had not (yet). $\endgroup$ – Adam May 30 '19 at 21:10

Yes with respect to the CONCORD supersonic which had different limitations due to the produced supersonic subsonic transitional external sound.

As you say recently with respect to the 737 max, since it has been forbidden flight in Europe irrespective of FAA decision which came well later on.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question is whether or not the two agencies had a disagreement before the 737 MAX. $\endgroup$ – Terran Swett May 28 '19 at 17:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TannerSwett he did mention the Concorde which was well before the MAX, though it's not clear (from the answer) whether or not the Concorde disagreement was about airworthiness (as the question asks) or about where it was allowed to fly due to the sonic boom. Additionally, he'd have done better to have combined his newer answer with the existing one. $\endgroup$ – FreeMan May 30 '19 at 12:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.