Boeing 737 MAX Cleared By European Regulators

Boeing 737 MAX Cleared By European Regulators

47

It’s official — the Boeing 737 MAX can once again return to the European skies. The 737 MAX was first grounded globally in March 2019, following two fatal crashes. Since then, Boeing has been making fixes to get the plane certified again.

We recently saw the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “unground” the 737 MAX, and today European regulators have done the same.

EASA signs off on Boeing 737 MAX

Back in October 2020, Patrick Ky, Executive Director of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), stated that he was satisfied with the changes that Boeing has made to the 737 MAX.

Then in November 2020, the EASA published a Proposed Airworthiness Directive for the 737 MAX returning to service. There was still a 28-day public consultation period, but that has now been wrapped up.

The EASA has today given its approval for the 737 MAX to return to the skies.

As the Executive Director of the EASA describes this development:

“We have reached a significant milestone on a long road. Following extensive analysis by EASA, we have determined that the 737 MAX can safely return to service. This assessment was carried out in full independence of Boeing or the Federal Aviation Administration and without any economic or political pressure – we asked difficult questions until we got answers and pushed for solutions which satisfied our exacting safety requirements. We carried out our own flight tests and simulator sessions and did not rely on others to do this for us.

Let me be quite clear that this journey does not end here. We have every confidence that the aircraft is safe, which is the precondition for giving our approval. But we will continue to monitor 737 MAX operations closely as the aircraft resumes service. In parallel, and at our insistence, Boeing has also committed to work to enhance the aircraft still further in the medium term, in order to reach an even higher level of safety.”

The 737 MAX can return to the European skies

EASA mandates 737 MAX changes

The EASA is mandating several changes to the 737 MAX, including the following:

  • Software updates for the flight control computer, including the MCAS
  • Software updates to display an alert in case of disagreement between the two angle of attack sensors
  • Physical separation of wires routed from the cockpit to the stabilizer trim motor
  • Updates to flight manuals: operational limitations and improved procedures to equip pilots to understand and manage all relevant failure scenarios
  • Mandatory training for all 737 MAX pilots before they fly the plane again, and updates of the initial and recurrent training of pilots on the MAX
  • Tests of systems including the angle of attack sensor system
  • An operational readiness flight, without passengers, before commercial usage of each aircraft to ensure that all design changes have been correctly implemented and the aircraft successfully and safely brought out of its long period of storage

It’s interesting to note that even though the FAA and EASA worked fairly closely together and are going off the same information, the two organizations have mandated somewhat different changes.

Existing 737 MAXs will need software updates, and more

Support from foreign regulators is significant

The 737 MAX certification process and investigation has brought a lot of things to light, both regarding Boeing’s corporate culture, and also regarding its relationship with the FAA.

As the 737 MAX has undergone the certification process, one major question has been whether foreign regulators would follow the FAA’s lead. It’s certainly a good sign for Boeing that approval is coming from so many foreign regulators.

Will other regulators follow the lead of the FAA & EASA?

We’ll see how passengers respond

I’ll be very curious to see how the public responds to the 737 MAX returning to the skies:

  • So many people have said “I’ll never fly that plane,” but only time will tell if that’s just empty talk, or if people follow through on that; it could be like people who threaten to never fly an airline again, and then the next time when that airline is a dollar cheaper than the competitor, they book it
  • We’ve seen some airlines say they’ll let people rebook if they are scheduled to be on a 737 MAX, so I’m curious to see just how many airlines have a policy like this; perhaps it’s a moot point for now, as airlines are waiving change fees in general
  • Boeing is quietly rebranding the 737 MAX — for example, the Boeing 737 MAX 8 is now being branded as the 737-8, so clearly Boeing is hoping that people forget the “MAX” name

Would I be comfortable flying the 737 MAX? Well:

  • Have I lost a lot of respect for both Boeing and the FAA throughout this process? Absolutely
  • But personally I’d be happy to fly the 737 MAX again

Ironically airlines might be just as unhappy as passengers about the 737 MAX being cleared to fly again, because they’ll be on the hook for paying for these planes, and won’t be getting compensation from Boeing anymore.

Will passengers really not fly the 737 MAX?

Bottom line

The EASA has issued a final approval for the 737 MAX to return to the skies, and the plane should be flying again in Europe shortly. The EASA does have some requirements for the plane, which aren’t identical to the FAA’s requirements, interestingly enough.

Key regulators around the world have now signed off the plane, so I’ll be curious to see if other regulators follow. Perhaps most significant is what the Civil Aviation Administration of China, will do, given the political implications.

Conversations (47)
Newest comments are displayed first.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. KJ

    @David you are 100% correct. Aircraft are not grounded because of pilot incompetence. @Luke & @ Steve cc are talking nonsense. As a point of fact Ethiopia is deemed a poor country based on GDP,however Ethiopian Airlines,which is not a low cost carrier,is held in such high regard,that it conducted Covid-19 repatriation flights all over the globe on behalf of numerous governments,including the British & American.Poorly trained pilots flying for an airline,would certainly not be...

    @David you are 100% correct. Aircraft are not grounded because of pilot incompetence. @Luke & @ Steve cc are talking nonsense. As a point of fact Ethiopia is deemed a poor country based on GDP,however Ethiopian Airlines,which is not a low cost carrier,is held in such high regard,that it conducted Covid-19 repatriation flights all over the globe on behalf of numerous governments,including the British & American.Poorly trained pilots flying for an airline,would certainly not be the choice of governments , repatriating their citizens,if your assertions were true.

    Airliners,sadly crash for a variety of reasons, however that doesn't mean that airlines operating aircraft types that have crashed with other airlines,are any safer than their unfortunate counterparts.
    The B737-200 is a case in point. How many fatal rudder-hardover crashes did that aircraft have?2?3? How many airlines worldwide operated that aircraft without incident?over 50,so an aircraft with a flaw can be flown for thousands of hours without incident,doesn't mean the flaw doesnt exist?No.

    It would have been the simplest thing in the world to blame the pilots,& not ground the max,if the facts would have allowed that course of action to be taken.After all it wasn't the first aircraft to have 2 crashes within 3 months of each other.Since that didn't happen, is it not logical to conclude that the fact that the aircraft was grounded & subsequently required a relatively extensive fix,for the offending system,illustrates,that this was not a case of simply not following the drill for a runaway stabiliser trim by the deceased crews?

  2. Ali

    There’s still some concern, read this article:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55751150

  3. jkjkjk

    I fly delta, i don't fly max or 787. Simple as that. A220 FTW.

  4. DeePeeGrumps

    Perfect timing. The 737MAX will be deployed in a region where travel demand has dropped to the point where the plane will be pretty much empty when it falls out of the sky...again.

  5. Chuck

    Dont care much. Would be better to get $69 to Florida. Could be a safest plane from now

  6. Tom Smith

    I don't think you will see anyone avoid it in practice.

    Your flight on a soldout date or a flight with an international connection has been changed to a 737-MAX. Your choice is to (a) fly the MAX, (b) not fly and hope for a seat on a later flight, (c) not go on your trip. What would most people do? My guess is they complain, complain and complain, then when the gate agents says pick a/b/c, they pick (a) and fly the MAX.

  7. Otávio

    One of the major issues was the size of the engine and after a long grounding the engine size is the same....so they decided to fix a hardware problems with software. IMHO I will avoid it for at leat 2 years.

  8. Sung

    I think most passengers don't even know what aircraft they fly. So I think a discreet change like eliminating the max, will do the trick.

  9. David

    @Luke - if it was simple pilot incompetence then what was the last year and a half about? All they would have to do is say is next time anyone gets into this situation, throw this switch. Clearly this was a much bigger issue, concern being noted by US pilots too. A lot of people needlessly lost their lives over more than a simple switch and procedure. Show a little more respect.

  10. Mark

    A plane that requires software to overcome its engines being in the wrong place gets a fix to that piece of software... and its engines are still in the same place as before. As a face saving exercise, I would have liked it to be recertified but not permitted to use the CFM LEAP (or equivalent) engines. Wouldn't have made it economically viable but would have spared a few blushes amongst the many parties involved.

    ...

    A plane that requires software to overcome its engines being in the wrong place gets a fix to that piece of software... and its engines are still in the same place as before. As a face saving exercise, I would have liked it to be recertified but not permitted to use the CFM LEAP (or equivalent) engines. Wouldn't have made it economically viable but would have spared a few blushes amongst the many parties involved.

    At least Boeing won't make the same mistake in future surely and will engineer new airframes to take a new generation of engines. There's going to be a lot of crossed fingers for the next few years of MAX (or whatever it ends up being called) operations.

  11. Roy Jones

    The title of this article is misleading. EASA has NOT cleared the 737MAX to fly again. It has issued a proposal to do so which has requirements different from the FAA and now has a 30 day comment period. Only then will EASA issue a qualified clearance just as the FAA has. EASA has already indicated its requirements will be different from those of the FAA

  12. Gregg

    I have no problem flying on this plane. I will avoid it on AA due to their “Oasis” configuration.

    I wish they still had the Mad Dogs. I loved that plane. For that matter I miss Northwest’s DC-9s even more. Any plane that has been flying around for 30 years has pretty much experienced everything that’s going to be thrown at it. Take the wings off of it and you could use it as a tank!

  13. Steve_CC

    The US and Europe have real pilots. If you fly a budget airline from a bottom tier GDP nation then you are at risk regardless of what plane you fly. There have been plenty of a320 and regular 737 crashes from these airlines to go along with a ton of turboprop and smaller plane crashes. After flying a MAX on southwest airlines it was very hard to go back to a regular older 737. I...

    The US and Europe have real pilots. If you fly a budget airline from a bottom tier GDP nation then you are at risk regardless of what plane you fly. There have been plenty of a320 and regular 737 crashes from these airlines to go along with a ton of turboprop and smaller plane crashes. After flying a MAX on southwest airlines it was very hard to go back to a regular older 737. I will seek these out on SW everytime i can, as for american i will pass because project oasis is trash but i fully trust AA. Lion Air that has a crash every year, no thanks not on any plane.

  14. Naren

    I will definitely be flying Max. After 18 months of work it will be as safe as any other safe plane.
    I too wonder why US did not have crashes that others had.

  15. WSHN

    I will totally avoid it for at least the first year back in service. But will continue to avoid it whenever possible because of the cramped interior. I have flown on it once on AC from LAX-YYZ, the seat and the lav were small.

  16. Surly Bonds

    I will not fly a 737MAX until it has had a two-year record of safe flying. I suppose I could be convinced to shorten that to one year. But I absolutely won't be getting on one before that. It seems to me that the engine redesign as created fundamental stability of flight issues.

    All those people arguing that the flying public is ignorant of aircraft types are forgetting that this is the age of social...

    I will not fly a 737MAX until it has had a two-year record of safe flying. I suppose I could be convinced to shorten that to one year. But I absolutely won't be getting on one before that. It seems to me that the engine redesign as created fundamental stability of flight issues.

    All those people arguing that the flying public is ignorant of aircraft types are forgetting that this is the age of social media. The flaws of the 737MAX are infamous in a way that those of no other aircraft (save perhaps the Concorde in 2000) have ever been before -- not the Comet, not the DC10.

    Finally, the attempts to blame pilots for what is demonstrably a flaw in design and software are shameful. I agree there may be some racism at work.

  17. Surly Bonds

    @Andy, it seems to me that the pandemic has shown that people *won't* fly if their choice is between flying unsafely and not flying at all.

  18. Jackie

    @GlobeTrotter "people are desperate to travel"

    Really? Do tell...No one is desperate to travel through virus-infested airport terminal only to get squeezed inside an uncomfortable metal tube for hours with hundreds of strangers carrying whatever god-awful disease.

    Funniest comment ever. Desperate to travel. /s

  19. Andy

    Well, I think with the ultra slim schedules because of the pandemic pax will have to accept whatever plane is taking them there ... In particular flying international, you are often down to one flight every other day. If you don’t take this one because of aircraft preferences, you will have to walk (or swim) ...

  20. AW

    @Tesfa It has nothing to do with "black and brown pilots." It has to do with the fact that both Lion Air and Ethiopian had demonstrably bad pilot training programs. It really isn't that hard to do a little reading/research into what happened. Although I admit that it's more difficult than just spouting off racism accusations.

  21. Robert Braun

    Been in the transportation industry for years!!!! I will say this: when the DC-10 experienced all those crashes, people threatened to not fly them. And some held true to that. But the vast majority of people hopped right back on them when they were cleared to fly again. The only difference between then and now is 1) the news is literally in your pocket and thrown in your face, whereas it wasn't like that back...

    Been in the transportation industry for years!!!! I will say this: when the DC-10 experienced all those crashes, people threatened to not fly them. And some held true to that. But the vast majority of people hopped right back on them when they were cleared to fly again. The only difference between then and now is 1) the news is literally in your pocket and thrown in your face, whereas it wasn't like that back in the 70s and 80s. And articles like this could only be read in newspapers. So you weren't constantly reminded of the failings of McDonnell Douglas. 2) the 737MAX was grounded way longer than any other aircraft type in history. Even with the cancelations (which I attribute more to airlines looking to shed off excess orders due to low demand because of coronavirus rather than a bad reputation), the MAX still has a relatively healthy order book. And I suspect we will start to see more orders come in a very short time once the grounding is lifted worldwide. The general public often couldn't tell you if they were on a Boeing jet or an Airbus, let alone which model it is. Boeing seems to understand that the MAX name has been tarnished and, like the article said, is quietly ditching the name.

    As for me? I flew on this aircraft at least 30 times before it was grounded. I will have no problem boarding another one once they're cleared to fly. Neither will millions of others.

    Just my 2¢.

  22. Jordan

    It's the usual set up. The approval came from Europe first to convince the US public and others that its certified by an "outsider" first. Watch the news media spin it, and say its a "significant" development, since the FAA lost all credibility. Not buying this for a minute.

    I will not be boarding one of these.

  23. Tesfa

    @Luke
    So what you are saying is that Black and Brown pilots (on Ethiopian and Lion respectively) are not "competent pilots". Shame on you Sir.

  24. Luke

    I think the general public doesn’t understand the extent to which the MAX crashes could have been avoided by more competent pilots.

    There’s a channel on YouTube, MentourPilot – he’s a 737 captain – he explains that all you would’ve had to do to prevent the MCAS-induced stall would be to follow the procedure for a runaway trim emergency. That procedure literally is to flip one switch to disable the auto-trim system, which is a...

    I think the general public doesn’t understand the extent to which the MAX crashes could have been avoided by more competent pilots.

    There’s a channel on YouTube, MentourPilot – he’s a 737 captain – he explains that all you would’ve had to do to prevent the MCAS-induced stall would be to follow the procedure for a runaway trim emergency. That procedure literally is to flip one switch to disable the auto-trim system, which is a superset of / contains the MCAS functionality.

    Auto-trim has existed since the 737NG; MCAS was just added to it in the 737MAX. Should Boeing have never allowed this issue to exist in the first place? Definitely. Should they have updated training manuals to inform pilots about this new system? Absolutely. Could a pilot that actually had The Right Stuff ™ solved the emergency in two seconds? Yes.

    I’ll be flying them the day they return to service.

  25. John

    I just wont fly it. I know it doesnt matter as 95% of passengers have no clue what they are flying on and if they knew wouldnt care, but still...

  26. KR

    These only belong in the world in places where they can be turned into restaurants. Only use of them-period.

  27. Mayank

    As it’s clear that this winter will probably result in the kind of passenger numbers we say in May & June (90% lower than same time last year), I don’t think the max planes will really even be in the fleet of most airliners. The fact is that the 737 max is already obsolete for the next 6 months because it’s too high density. Unless airliners are planning on using these planes to conduct transatlantic...

    As it’s clear that this winter will probably result in the kind of passenger numbers we say in May & June (90% lower than same time last year), I don’t think the max planes will really even be in the fleet of most airliners. The fact is that the 737 max is already obsolete for the next 6 months because it’s too high density. Unless airliners are planning on using these planes to conduct transatlantic flights because it’s clearly lower density than a wide body & the passenger numbers will be extremely low, then there’s no real usage for this aircraft in Europe & North America & most likely not even in Asia

  28. Gabe

    The design of the aircraft is fundamentally flawed and pilots will require retraining to deal with an aircraft whose aerodynamic characteristics don’t favor balanced flight.

    It is profoundly unsafe to continue to try and tinker with this design by compensating through software. It isn’t a software problem, it’s a design problem.

    My answer is no.

  29. Kj

    @steve cc
    What a " patronising remark " Southwest never had any issues with them (probably because they have real pilots)" What are you implying?That any airline that has a crash doesn't have real pilots?

  30. Otávio

    I intend not to fly on this plane! Will avoid at all cost.

  31. SB

    AA is showing 737 MAX on NYC - MIA for early December.

  32. Dick Bupkiss

    There will be exactly zero resistance from passengers. They do not care. All they want is $29 flights to Orlando.

    However, the mobs of self-appointed keyboard warrior aviation safety experts will howl at the moon endlessly over their outrage. They're utterly ignorant about anything involving aviation technology beyond what kind of bowl the nuts are served in up in business class, but that won't stop them from denouncing whatever is done.

  33. Marky Mark

    I'm booked on a United MCO - IAD flight in November, and when I booked it, it showed as a 737-8 MAX. When I checked this week, it had been changed back to a 737-800. I don't know why United loaded the MAX in their inventory and then withdrew it.

  34. AW

    Presumably each plane needs a software update, and the FAA (and maybe the Euros) were also going to require some rebundling/rerouting of control wires running through the tail that could cause a short in the stabilizer controls.

    So, long story short, you're not going to be flying a MAX anytime soon. I'd guess that maybe the earliest ones might start flying late Summer 2020. I'd guess Southwest won't hesitate to put them back in service as soon as they're available.

  35. Steve_CC

    I made sure to seek these out on Southwest before the crashes and i loved them, fly the max 3 times and every time passengers came on board they were pleasantly surprised with the space, the colors, the windows, and the massive overhead space. Passengers loved this plane (obviously before the news of the 2 crashes) but Southwest never had an issue with them (probably because they have real pilots) and wanted them back in service asap.

  36. TM

    Count me in as one who will continue to avoid it, not because it’s a MAX, but because it’s a 737. There’s only so much lipstick you can slap on the pig. I realize 737s are nearly impossible to avoid, especially in the domestic US market, but give a choice between a 737 or alternative families like the A320, A220, or 757, I’m going to pick the latter every single time.

  37. Katie

    I will try to avoid the MAX for a couple of years, but I don’t think they flying public will care that much.

  38. TravelinWilly

    The Covid-19 of airframes.

    No, thank you.

  39. SEM

    @Pierre has a great point that most people overlook due to the 2 crashes..."Lipstick on a pig" comes to mind with regards to this aircraft comfort/size wise...I avoid the 737-900ER as much as possible as is...Of course that can be difficult being a UA flyer, but I try...I feel I will be doing the same with these out of an abundance of caution as well as the OLD CRAMPED 737 interior...

  40. Pierre

    Given the scrutiny, the redundant fixes, the training and what is at stake, this plane has probably become the safest aircraft to fly on. My own reluctance to use it, at least on AA, remains the ridiculous "Oasis" interiors and density, the lack of IFE and the size of the toilets.

  41. Steve

    nobody needs them within the next 2 years. take your time

  42. Jan

    MAX's will probably the safest passenger plane in the world once all the major int'l agencies give it the green light to restart service

  43. Adam

    I won’t be booking myself onto the first flight. When it’s been flying for a year without incident, I’ll be more relaxed about it.

  44. Joey

    This is great news for Boeing! As for me flying on the 737-MAX, I’m waiting at least 2 years to see whether there are any other crashes. This plane had its first commercial flight in 2017 and was then grounded in early 2019 due to 2 crashes. I definitely do not want to be one of the guinea pigs and fly this plane during its first months back in commercial aviation.... regardless of what the FAA or EASA says about its safety.

  45. Doug

    I would imagine that part of the reason that the FAA has been slow to issue their approval has been a desire to have a foreign regulatory agency approve it first. The optics of this are simply much better than the FAA being first with the appearance of pressure being put on others.

  46. GlobeTrotter

    I don't think the plane will face serious resistance from passengers. It is no longer in the news, people are desperate to travel and most passengers wouldn't be able to figure out what plane they are flying, unless they are told by the airline.

Featured Comments Load all 47 comments Most helpful comments ( as chosen by the OMAAT community ).

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

KJ

@David you are 100% correct. Aircraft are not grounded because of pilot incompetence. @Luke & @ Steve cc are talking nonsense. As a point of fact Ethiopia is deemed a poor country based on GDP,however Ethiopian Airlines,which is not a low cost carrier,is held in such high regard,that it conducted Covid-19 repatriation flights all over the globe on behalf of numerous governments,including the British & American.Poorly trained pilots flying for an airline,would certainly not be the choice of governments , repatriating their citizens,if your assertions were true. Airliners,sadly crash for a variety of reasons, however that doesn't mean that airlines operating aircraft types that have crashed with other airlines,are any safer than their unfortunate counterparts. The B737-200 is a case in point. How many fatal rudder-hardover crashes did that aircraft have?2?3? How many airlines worldwide operated that aircraft without incident?over 50,so an aircraft with a flaw can be flown for thousands of hours without incident,doesn't mean the flaw doesnt exist?No. It would have been the simplest thing in the world to blame the pilots,& not ground the max,if the facts would have allowed that course of action to be taken.After all it wasn't the first aircraft to have 2 crashes within 3 months of each other.Since that didn't happen, is it not logical to conclude that the fact that the aircraft was grounded & subsequently required a relatively extensive fix,for the offending system,illustrates,that this was not a case of simply not following the drill for a runaway stabiliser trim by the deceased crews?

Ali

There’s still some concern, read this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55751150

jkjkjk

I fly delta, i don't fly max or 787. Simple as that. A220 FTW.

Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
4,523,713 Miles Traveled

25,807,500 Words Written

28,675 Posts Published