> This is more and more starting to smell a bit like this is the first time in a while when somebody is actually looking whether a plane fulfills the regulation

> This is more and more starting to smell a bit like this is the first time in a while when somebody is actually looking whether a plane fulfills the regulation Of course it is. That's the whole point of MCAS, limited pilot training, and the rest of Boeing's "strange" design decisions to make the Max seem like a minor update. Let me state this explicitly: The 737 does not meet current FAR part 25 standards. It did meet part 25 standards at the time the type certificate was issued 50+ years ago, but the standards have changed. So how was the Max certified? Well, the FAA awarded Boeing an "amended type certificate" (that's a term of art) for the 737 Max, which means that it is certified on the basis of being a variant of the original 737-100 that flew in 1967. That means aircraft systems can be grandfathered in, even if they don't meet current standards. Many of the 737's systems would need to be extensively redesigned in order to pass muster for a new type certificate. Boeing did everything they could to avoid a new type certificate for the Max, so as to avoid redesigning the entire plane. Fun fact: Every Boeing 717 still has a placard near the main front entry door that proudly announces its Douglas DC-9 type certificate (from two corporate mergers ago).