5 ms·
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 de
by InclinedPlane 13y ago
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.
- ohazi 13y agoNewest? First flight was in 1994.
- rdl 13y ago777-200LR is pretty new though (2006?)
- jcdavis 13y agoits a 777-200ER, not LR. Still a fairly new plane though
- ohazi 13y agoThe 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_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777#Incidents_and_accide...
- rdl 13y agoAh -- 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.
- furyofantares 13y agoI don't think anyone would argue that an article about an engineering defect wouldn't be relevant, but OP is not that.