A Picture of the crashed aircraft.
Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority: aircraft was a Eurocopter EC225LP, and was operated by CHC Helicopter, owned by US private equity firm First Reserve for Halliburton, the well known American oil company.
(Perhaps I should note I had unusual difficulty posting this item and much of it did not appear)
Strange wording of Press Release
There is something rather strange about the precise wording of the press release issued today by Norway's accident investigation board:
"We are as certain as we can be that a technical error caused the accident. We don't think it was due to human misinterpretations."
"Technical error"? Is not the use of the noun 'error' applicable only to human actions. As the dictionary describes it better than me, "the state or condition of being wrong in conduct or judgement."
A mechanical failure must surely be a "fault" or "malfunction" but never an "error".
An alternative technical definition is provided as follows: "A measure of the estimated difference between the observed or calculated value of a quantity and its true value."
(See: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=error&rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&oq=error&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2338j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Words chosen with care?
In these high profile tragic events, words are chosen with care, even when considerations of translation are taken into account. Everyone knows English is the dominant international language by which statements will be interpreted. The choice of 'error' in preference to 'fault' could therefore hardly be accidental. Is it being used to seed an idea that the suspected causation actually involves human interference or mistakes without stating as much?
The second part of of the statement tends to give credence to this interpretation: "We don't think it was due to human misinterpretations."
"THINK"? Please note this is five days after the 'black box' was retrieved, giving adequate time for it to be analysed in detail plus all the other accompanying servicing and flight records.
We may take the view that although the exact technical cause may take time to establish, with the evidence from flight data and particularly the instrumentation and voice box recorder, it would at least, without prevarication, be possible to rule out piloting error if there was no evidence of it?
Prudent Wariness of High-Profile Accidents
We have learned to be very wary of high profile accidents and incidents, often involving aircraft. There have been quite a lot of them recently. Sometimes the cause is put down to terrorism, sometimes to military action, sometimes to pilot error, sometimes to intentional suicide, sometimes to hijacking, sometimes to weather conditions or mechanical failure. (I could list examples of each but I will spare you)
Unfortunately when international politics and terrorism enters the mix, nothing may be as it seems. The case of Pan Am Flight 103 that crashed over Lockerbie is a case in point, surrounded to this day in intrigue and the suspicion that those blamed and the person convicted was probably either innocent of the charge or working for a different agency altogether. The fate of Gaddafi and others in the know rather confirms the truth of the matter.
We are all now well aware - or should be - that the planes supposedly involved in the 9/11 attacks were not in fact involved, a deception that could only be organised by the American Government itself. No other agency could possibly be involved. The disappearance of MH370 remains a tantalising mystery with an official explanation that remains wholly unconvincing.
The crash of MH17 has never been properly explained and worse blamed on parties known not to be responsible. The Russian Metrojet Flight 9268 that crashed over Sinai, conveniently blamed on ISIS, leaves many questions unanswered as to who was actually behind it. The Germanwings Flight 9525 that crashed into the Alps was blamed on a suicidal pilot which some think might be a little too easy and convenient an explanation.
These are just a few examples that teach us to be wary of such events and the official explanations that accompany them. Pure accidents do happen all the time but unfortunately so do malicious events, often covertly by government organisations, out to make a point to the commercial or national interests concerned. It is always worth the context in a little more detail before coming to a balanced judgement. Sometimes the smallest clues - even choice of words - provide the indicators to something else.
Conflicting Photographic Evidence?
"Emergency crews pulled the wrecked fuselage out of the sea on Saturday ahead of an investigation into the cause. Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported Friday night that the helicopter's two so-called "black boxes" that record flight data and the pilots' conversations had been recovered." http://www.tjcnewspaper.com/norway-helicopter-crash-13-feared-dead
Here is the accompanying photograph of the still smoulder wreckage we must assume.
http://www.nbcmontana.com/image/view/-/39281470/medRes/3/-/maxh/360/maxw/640/-/11gubl9z/-/Search-and-rescue-Norway-jpg.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/wpcluster.dctdigital.com/energyvoice/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/04/Norway-crash.jpg
Note no tangible evidence of a helicopter remains, including significantly the fairly indestructible engine. Also one must ask why it caused so great an explosion when it was near completion of its round trip to the Gullfaks B platform and presumably was low on fuel? Explanation should also be provided for the evident sources of smoke periphery to the main point of impact and explosion, if so it was. A spokesman for the Norwegian police in the region said the aircraft had been “totally smashed”. I would suggest that the more appropriate description would be 'evaporated', which rather reminds me of the description of another famous crash some fifteen years previous.
Now another photograph of the alleged crash attached to this article from CNN here http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/29/europe/norway-helicopter-crash/:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160429143510-norway-helicopter-crash-flames-large-169.jpg
Please note this in no way accords with the report that the helicopter 'crashed into, and was pulled out from, the sea'! Look also at the apparent widespread nature of the flame and then in comparing this with the former photograph, apparently after the fire was extinguished, try to explain how the nearby house was left so unscathed and there were no civilian casualties. The white walls of the houses are not even smoke stained. There appears to be something very obviously incongruous here.
In passing note also the word 'assets' in the source image. I have referred to this phenomenon before in relation to other recent and well known 'terrorist events'.
Now perhaps even more importantly, compare and contrast with this next image of the alleged crashed aircraft.
Note the completely different topography and absence of fire damage including to the bushes and small trees, quite incompatible with the above image and with the official version of events! Note also in this photograph the aircraft lies on its side adjacent to a trafficked highway, completely absent from the previous photographs.
There is Youtube video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy_lHg7roUA) that fails to resolve any of the serious questions raised above. Questions that should be addressed and answered by the appropriate authorities.
http://nrinews24x7.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Norway-helicopter-crash.jpg
Video here (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/norway-helicopter-crash-claimed-life-7892423) appears to show that immediately before the crash, a complete rotor blade is seen descending quite separately from the aircraft which is nowhere to be seen despite apparently crashing nearby.
First this is strange in and of itself but becomes stranger when compared to the photo of the alleged crashed helicopter with blades intact!
From that same Mirror report are these images:
and
Although the photographic images are somewhat distant and indistinct, my only observation would be is that there is precious little remaining of what was a quite large passenger carrying aircraft and certainly nothing to suggest an indestructible engine. Nor would there appear to be any evidence of bodies or the normal associated arrangements to collect, identify and remove them. Not one stretcher is in evidence yet all the various rescue personnel are at the scene!
These reservations may be explicable. They should be explained.
To Summarise
1. The official account that the helicopter crashed into, and was recovered from, the sea, is not supported by the photographic evidence which appears to show a huge crash explosion on the rocky coastline.
2. 'Before' and 'after' photographs of this crash site are hard to correlate insofar, despite a huge area covered by fire and smoke, there appears little or no impact to the buildings immediately adjacent. This is hard to explain as is the fact there were apparently no casualties of persons living in or around them.
3. However these narrative and evidential inconsistencies are as nothing when compared to the third image purporting to be the crashed aircraft, to which there is absolutely no evidence of fire damage to either it, or its immediate vicinity. Indeed the snow cover is neither melted or blackened.
4. Further in respect of this latter image, neither topography or features fit the earlier coastal ones. The wooded aspect with adjacent travelled highway are distinctly different from the rocky coastal outcrop in the others.
5. The two locations and events that purport to be of same incident cannot be, yet no explanation or correction is forth-coming. This can only be regarded as a gigantic mistake and/or highly suspicious.
ADDENDUM: A PRINCE WILLIAM CONNECTION?
It is well known that Prince William is a helicopter pilot. He flies an analogous Eurocopter EC 145 for East Anglian Air Ambulance after several years flying air/sea rescue helicopters with the Royal Navy.
He is formally employed by Babcock Mission Critical Services Onshore Ltd. (previously Bond Air Services) that also provides transport to the North Sea from its Aberdeen bases. (The latter firm was taken over by Badcocks in 2014 in a £920 million deal.) 'Avincis' which in turn is owned by private equity outfit Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Italian group Investindustrial, owned Bond Air Services. Babcock highlighted a number of issues facing Avincis, including the ongoing Air Accident Investigation Branch probe into another fatal helicopter crash at Clutha in Scotland.
Now here's an interesting twist! We discover that the owners of both the Norwegian helicopter company and the previous owner of the British 'Bond Helicopters', are close American private equity bedfellows, respectively 'First Reserve Corporation' and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (now KKR & Co. L.P.) 'joined at the hip' since 2012.
"Acteon has built a significant subsea services business in the oil and gas sector. This latest investment will support the continued delivery of its ambitions and of its goal to define the market in this relatively new and expanding part of the upstream industry. As part of the transaction, the Houston-based private equity firm White Deer Energy will be investing alongside KKR and management." (See: http://www.firstreserve.com/news-articles/acteon-group-announces-change-in-ownership-first-reserve-corporation-sells-majority-interest-in-acte)
It would appear as regards North Sea oil and helicopter support, it is financially, one big happy Jewish/American family.
So as respects both Helicopter and Employer, there are clear parallels with Norwegian crash helicopter. There are also very close links between the Royal families of both countries besides a shared interest in oil fields of the North Sea. Are any of these facts significant to the crash?
It would be very far fetched to suggest the crash, in some way, was intended as a reminder or coded message to the British Government in general and the Royal Family in particular as to the vulnerability of high profile figures. Underhand messages of this sort can never be completely ruled out though, can they? We have witnessed too many of them.
For Prince William's job see: http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/647079/Prince-William-refuel-helicopter-Cambridge and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3018429/Prince-William-starts-new-job-training-fly-air-ambulance-missions-paternity-leave-baby-number-two-born-month.html
For the helicopter he flies see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC145
For the acquisition of Bond Air Services by Badcock see: http://www.scotsman.com/business/companies/babcock-seals-920m-deal-to-buy-bond-chopper-firm-1-3355108
For information on Babcock Mission Critical Services: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_Mission_Critical_Services_Onshore_Ltd.
For the Clutha helicopter crash see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Glasgow_helicopter_crash
Background Facts
From Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Tur%C3%B8y_helicopter_crash
"On 29 April 2016 a CHC Helikopter Service Eurocopter EC225 Super Puma (Airbus Helicopters H225) helicopter, registration LN-OJF, carrying oil workers from the Gullfaks B platform in the North Sea, crashed near Turoy, a Norwegian coastal island 36 kilometres (22 mi) from the city of Bergen. Several witnesses reported initially seeing nothing untoward with the helicopter flying steadily, before the sound suddenly changed and it started to sway. A moment later its main rotor detached and it plummeted to the ground and exploded into flames.[1][2] All thirteen crew and passengers died in the crash.[3]"
The helicopter was operated by CHC Helicopter, owned by US private equity firm First Reserve. Four victims on board were employed by Halliburton the oil company. Four including a contractor, were employed by Akers Solutions. All four had worked for its Maintenance, Modifications and Operations (MMO) unit in Norway. The Gullfaks platform is part of the Norwegian 'Statoil' North Sea oil operation. Statoil is 67% Norwegian Government owned, the remainder in the hands of private investors.
Reports here:
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2016-05-03/officials-fatal-norway-helicopter-crash-due-to-technical-error/
http://www.smh.com.au/world/helicopter-crashes-off-norway-with-13-on-board-20160429-goir7l.html#ixzz47FzMyBTw
Information on the Helicopter and manufacturer here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC225_Super_Puma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Helicopters
Information on the Equity Investment Company here:
http://www.firstreserve.com/portfolio
Information on the helicopter operators here:
http://www.chc.ca/
-- CHC Group (OTC Pink Sheets: HELIQ; the “Company” or “CHC”) today announced that the Company and certain of its wholly-owned subsidiaries have filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas to facilitate the restructuring of its balance sheet and fleet, and position the Company for long-term success. The reorganization is expected to strengthen CHC’s financial position by reducing long-term debt and enhancing financial flexibility while allowing the Company to manage and operate its fleet of aircraft."
"An update on the global EC 225 fleet
Information on Statoil here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil
Information on Halliburton operation in NoSea here:
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/108284/north-sea-helicopter-crash-halliburton-staff-flight/
Information Akers Solutions here:
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/108280/north-sea-helicopter-crash-aker-solutions-says-three-workers-contractor-killed/
Words chosen with care?
In these high profile tragic events, words are chosen with care, even when considerations of translation are taken into account. Everyone knows English is the dominant international language by which statements will be interpreted. The choice of 'error' in preference to 'fault' could therefore hardly be accidental. Is it being used to seed an idea that the suspected causation actually involves human interference or mistakes without stating as much?
The second part of of the statement tends to give credence to this interpretation: "We don't think it was due to human misinterpretations."
"THINK"? Please note this is five days after the 'black box' was retrieved, giving adequate time for it to be analysed in detail plus all the other accompanying servicing and flight records.
We may take the view that although the exact technical cause may take time to establish, with the evidence from flight data and particularly the instrumentation and voice box recorder, it would at least, without prevarication, be possible to rule out piloting error if there was no evidence of it?
Prudent Wariness of High-Profile Accidents
We have learned to be very wary of high profile accidents and incidents, often involving aircraft. There have been quite a lot of them recently. Sometimes the cause is put down to terrorism, sometimes to military action, sometimes to pilot error, sometimes to intentional suicide, sometimes to hijacking, sometimes to weather conditions or mechanical failure. (I could list examples of each but I will spare you)
Unfortunately when international politics and terrorism enters the mix, nothing may be as it seems. The case of Pan Am Flight 103 that crashed over Lockerbie is a case in point, surrounded to this day in intrigue and the suspicion that those blamed and the person convicted was probably either innocent of the charge or working for a different agency altogether. The fate of Gaddafi and others in the know rather confirms the truth of the matter.
We are all now well aware - or should be - that the planes supposedly involved in the 9/11 attacks were not in fact involved, a deception that could only be organised by the American Government itself. No other agency could possibly be involved. The disappearance of MH370 remains a tantalising mystery with an official explanation that remains wholly unconvincing.
The crash of MH17 has never been properly explained and worse blamed on parties known not to be responsible. The Russian Metrojet Flight 9268 that crashed over Sinai, conveniently blamed on ISIS, leaves many questions unanswered as to who was actually behind it. The Germanwings Flight 9525 that crashed into the Alps was blamed on a suicidal pilot which some think might be a little too easy and convenient an explanation.
These are just a few examples that teach us to be wary of such events and the official explanations that accompany them. Pure accidents do happen all the time but unfortunately so do malicious events, often covertly by government organisations, out to make a point to the commercial or national interests concerned. It is always worth the context in a little more detail before coming to a balanced judgement. Sometimes the smallest clues - even choice of words - provide the indicators to something else.
Conflicting Photographic Evidence?
"Emergency crews pulled the wrecked fuselage out of the sea on Saturday ahead of an investigation into the cause. Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported Friday night that the helicopter's two so-called "black boxes" that record flight data and the pilots' conversations had been recovered." http://www.tjcnewspaper.com/norway-helicopter-crash-13-feared-dead
Here is the accompanying photograph of the still smoulder wreckage we must assume.
http://www.nbcmontana.com/image/view/-/39281470/medRes/3/-/maxh/360/maxw/640/-/11gubl9z/-/Search-and-rescue-Norway-jpg.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/wpcluster.dctdigital.com/energyvoice/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/04/Norway-crash.jpg
Note no tangible evidence of a helicopter remains, including significantly the fairly indestructible engine. Also one must ask why it caused so great an explosion when it was near completion of its round trip to the Gullfaks B platform and presumably was low on fuel? Explanation should also be provided for the evident sources of smoke periphery to the main point of impact and explosion, if so it was. A spokesman for the Norwegian police in the region said the aircraft had been “totally smashed”. I would suggest that the more appropriate description would be 'evaporated', which rather reminds me of the description of another famous crash some fifteen years previous.
Now another photograph of the alleged crash attached to this article from CNN here http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/29/europe/norway-helicopter-crash/:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160429143510-norway-helicopter-crash-flames-large-169.jpg
Please note this in no way accords with the report that the helicopter 'crashed into, and was pulled out from, the sea'! Look also at the apparent widespread nature of the flame and then in comparing this with the former photograph, apparently after the fire was extinguished, try to explain how the nearby house was left so unscathed and there were no civilian casualties. The white walls of the houses are not even smoke stained. There appears to be something very obviously incongruous here.
In passing note also the word 'assets' in the source image. I have referred to this phenomenon before in relation to other recent and well known 'terrorist events'.
Now perhaps even more importantly, compare and contrast with this next image of the alleged crashed aircraft.
Note the completely different topography and absence of fire damage including to the bushes and small trees, quite incompatible with the above image and with the official version of events! Note also in this photograph the aircraft lies on its side adjacent to a trafficked highway, completely absent from the previous photographs.
There is Youtube video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy_lHg7roUA) that fails to resolve any of the serious questions raised above. Questions that should be addressed and answered by the appropriate authorities.
http://nrinews24x7.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Norway-helicopter-crash.jpg
Video here (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/norway-helicopter-crash-claimed-life-7892423) appears to show that immediately before the crash, a complete rotor blade is seen descending quite separately from the aircraft which is nowhere to be seen despite apparently crashing nearby.
First this is strange in and of itself but becomes stranger when compared to the photo of the alleged crashed helicopter with blades intact!
From that same Mirror report are these images:
and
Although the photographic images are somewhat distant and indistinct, my only observation would be is that there is precious little remaining of what was a quite large passenger carrying aircraft and certainly nothing to suggest an indestructible engine. Nor would there appear to be any evidence of bodies or the normal associated arrangements to collect, identify and remove them. Not one stretcher is in evidence yet all the various rescue personnel are at the scene!
These reservations may be explicable. They should be explained.
To Summarise
1. The official account that the helicopter crashed into, and was recovered from, the sea, is not supported by the photographic evidence which appears to show a huge crash explosion on the rocky coastline.
2. 'Before' and 'after' photographs of this crash site are hard to correlate insofar, despite a huge area covered by fire and smoke, there appears little or no impact to the buildings immediately adjacent. This is hard to explain as is the fact there were apparently no casualties of persons living in or around them.
3. However these narrative and evidential inconsistencies are as nothing when compared to the third image purporting to be the crashed aircraft, to which there is absolutely no evidence of fire damage to either it, or its immediate vicinity. Indeed the snow cover is neither melted or blackened.
4. Further in respect of this latter image, neither topography or features fit the earlier coastal ones. The wooded aspect with adjacent travelled highway are distinctly different from the rocky coastal outcrop in the others.
5. The two locations and events that purport to be of same incident cannot be, yet no explanation or correction is forth-coming. This can only be regarded as a gigantic mistake and/or highly suspicious.
ADDENDUM: A PRINCE WILLIAM CONNECTION?
It is well known that Prince William is a helicopter pilot. He flies an analogous Eurocopter EC 145 for East Anglian Air Ambulance after several years flying air/sea rescue helicopters with the Royal Navy.
He is formally employed by Babcock Mission Critical Services Onshore Ltd. (previously Bond Air Services) that also provides transport to the North Sea from its Aberdeen bases. (The latter firm was taken over by Badcocks in 2014 in a £920 million deal.) 'Avincis' which in turn is owned by private equity outfit Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Italian group Investindustrial, owned Bond Air Services. Babcock highlighted a number of issues facing Avincis, including the ongoing Air Accident Investigation Branch probe into another fatal helicopter crash at Clutha in Scotland.
Now here's an interesting twist! We discover that the owners of both the Norwegian helicopter company and the previous owner of the British 'Bond Helicopters', are close American private equity bedfellows, respectively 'First Reserve Corporation' and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (now KKR & Co. L.P.) 'joined at the hip' since 2012.
"Acteon has built a significant subsea services business in the oil and gas sector. This latest investment will support the continued delivery of its ambitions and of its goal to define the market in this relatively new and expanding part of the upstream industry. As part of the transaction, the Houston-based private equity firm White Deer Energy will be investing alongside KKR and management." (See: http://www.firstreserve.com/news-articles/acteon-group-announces-change-in-ownership-first-reserve-corporation-sells-majority-interest-in-acte)
It would appear as regards North Sea oil and helicopter support, it is financially, one big happy Jewish/American family.
So as respects both Helicopter and Employer, there are clear parallels with Norwegian crash helicopter. There are also very close links between the Royal families of both countries besides a shared interest in oil fields of the North Sea. Are any of these facts significant to the crash?
It would be very far fetched to suggest the crash, in some way, was intended as a reminder or coded message to the British Government in general and the Royal Family in particular as to the vulnerability of high profile figures. Underhand messages of this sort can never be completely ruled out though, can they? We have witnessed too many of them.
For Prince William's job see: http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/647079/Prince-William-refuel-helicopter-Cambridge and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3018429/Prince-William-starts-new-job-training-fly-air-ambulance-missions-paternity-leave-baby-number-two-born-month.html
For the helicopter he flies see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC145
For the acquisition of Bond Air Services by Badcock see: http://www.scotsman.com/business/companies/babcock-seals-920m-deal-to-buy-bond-chopper-firm-1-3355108
For information on Babcock Mission Critical Services: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babcock_Mission_Critical_Services_Onshore_Ltd.
For the Clutha helicopter crash see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Glasgow_helicopter_crash
For information on Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg_Kravis_Roberts
"KKR & Co. L.P. (formerly known as Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.) is an American multinational private equity firm, specializing in leveraged buyouts, headquartered in New York City. The firm sponsors and manages private equity investment funds. A pioneer in the leveraged buyout industry, the firm has completed over $400 billion of private equity transactions since its inception.[2][3] The firm was founded in 1976 by Jerome Kohlberg, Jr., and cousins Henry Kravis and George R. Roberts, all of whom had previously worked together at Bear Stearns, where they completed some of the earliest leveraged buyout transactions."
Background Facts
From Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Tur%C3%B8y_helicopter_crash
"On 29 April 2016 a CHC Helikopter Service Eurocopter EC225 Super Puma (Airbus Helicopters H225) helicopter, registration LN-OJF, carrying oil workers from the Gullfaks B platform in the North Sea, crashed near Turoy, a Norwegian coastal island 36 kilometres (22 mi) from the city of Bergen. Several witnesses reported initially seeing nothing untoward with the helicopter flying steadily, before the sound suddenly changed and it started to sway. A moment later its main rotor detached and it plummeted to the ground and exploded into flames.[1][2] All thirteen crew and passengers died in the crash.[3]"
The helicopter was operated by CHC Helicopter, owned by US private equity firm First Reserve. Four victims on board were employed by Halliburton the oil company. Four including a contractor, were employed by Akers Solutions. All four had worked for its Maintenance, Modifications and Operations (MMO) unit in Norway. The Gullfaks platform is part of the Norwegian 'Statoil' North Sea oil operation. Statoil is 67% Norwegian Government owned, the remainder in the hands of private investors.
Reports here:
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2016-05-03/officials-fatal-norway-helicopter-crash-due-to-technical-error/
http://www.smh.com.au/world/helicopter-crashes-off-norway-with-13-on-board-20160429-goir7l.html#ixzz47FzMyBTw
Information on the Helicopter and manufacturer here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_EC225_Super_Puma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Helicopters
Information on the Equity Investment Company here:
http://www.firstreserve.com/portfolio
Information on the helicopter operators here:
http://www.chc.ca/
-- CHC Group (OTC Pink Sheets: HELIQ; the “Company” or “CHC”) today announced that the Company and certain of its wholly-owned subsidiaries have filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas to facilitate the restructuring of its balance sheet and fleet, and position the Company for long-term success. The reorganization is expected to strengthen CHC’s financial position by reducing long-term debt and enhancing financial flexibility while allowing the Company to manage and operate its fleet of aircraft."
"An update on the global EC 225 fleet
- -- Following Friday’s tragic accident involving an EC 225, CHC immediately put all EC 225 flights temporarily on hold with the exception of those aircraft dedicated to life-saving search-and-rescue missions.
CHC Helicopter confirms EC 225 accident at Flesland, Bergen
-- CHC Helicopter Service confirms that there has been an accident involving flight HKS 241 from Gullfaks B with estimated time of arrival at Flesland Airport Bergen at 12.04 pm CET. The aircraft involved in the accident is an Airbus EC 225 helicopter with 2 crew and 11 passengers operated for Statoil."
"A great view of Mt Rainier on my way to the 12th CHC Safety and Quality Summit. #CHCSummit"
This 'summit' predated Norway crash by only twenty five (25) days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil
Information on Halliburton operation in NoSea here:
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/108284/north-sea-helicopter-crash-halliburton-staff-flight/
Information Akers Solutions here:
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/108280/north-sea-helicopter-crash-aker-solutions-says-three-workers-contractor-killed/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.