[InclinedPlane]

How about: because the 777 is one of the newest airliners in production and SFO is one of the busiest airports in the US, so if this is due to an engineering defect it's both extremely concerning and relevant to general HN discussion, even aside from the immediate personal safety aspect. Just as the 787 battery problems were.

[furyofantares]

I don't think anyone would argue that an article about an engineering defect wouldn't be relevant, but OP is not that.

[ohazi]

Newest? First flight was in 1994.

[rdl]

777-200LR is pretty new though (2006?)

[ohazi]

The aircraft in question is a 777-200ER, which first flew in 1996.

The variants are usually relatively minor updates, though. Even the 747, which first flew in 1969, has a variant that can be considered "new" (-8, first flew in 2005). It's usually the early variants that validate the design.

Relative to other comparable aircraft, the 777 has a remarkably clean accident/incident record over an operational history spanning nearly 20 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Incidents_and_accide...

[rdl]

Ah -- I was copying from the airliners.net thread where someone initially said it was a 777-200LR. It is amazing just how safe the 777 seems to be. I wish they'd done the KC-777 plan for tankers instead of a KC-767.

[jcdavis]

its a 777-200ER, not LR. Still a fairly new plane though