Plum City – (AbelDanger.net): United States Marine Field McConnell has linked Serco’s Black Hand* waypoint services for its drug-hub banker HSBC to the student loan scheme which HSBC allegedly used to extort the participation of NetJets pilots in the Bin Laden Group’s decoy and drone maneuvers of 9/11 – all executed with high-speed check-free turns.
Black Hand* – Lloyd’s Register of captains or journeymen with a “Privy Seal License to Kill, Burn, Bribe” for the City of London’s Honourable Artillery Company 1537; Master Mariners and Air Pilots (formerly GAPAN) 1929, and The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts 1638 – whose alumni include U.S. Presidents James Monroe, Chester Alan Arthur, Calvin Coolidge and John F. Kennedy and – perhaps – Barack ‘Choom Gang‘ Obama.
McConnell asks readers to consider, as an instance of a Bin Laden Group high-speed check-free turn the attack on the Pentagon’s U.S. Navy Command Center where “an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was ‘Flight 77’ .. suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level.”
McConnell will attend The British Constitution Group’s Spring Conference, held jointly with the UK Column, in Telford, U.K., starting February 28, where he will invite rebuttal of his allegation that Serco has provided Black-Hand waypoint services to its drug-hub banker HSBC since 1988 and helped extorted NetJets pilots to execute the Bin Laden check-free turns in the 9/11 attacks.
SWISSLEAKS – “HSBC developed dangerous clients: arms merchants, drug dealers, terrorism financers”
Copy of SERCO GROUP PLC: List of Subsidiaries AND Shareholders! (Mobile Playback Version) [Note that HSBC is Serco’s banker and one of Serco’s major shareholders with
Her Majesty’s Government and its funds]
Serco… Would you like to know more?
“Hani Hanjour and Flight 77’s Unexplained Expert Maneuvers
Further suspension in logic exists in the ‘official story’s’ narrative as to who flew Flight 77 so expertly into the Pentagon’s west wing. Hani Hanjour is credited with being the airplane’s pilot. This is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious ‘pilot’s license’, officials at the airfield insisted he take a chaperoned test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, “It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all.” Other source. And yet, the official narrative of 9/11 asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation test pilot.
The official story unfolds something like this. The rather diminutive Hanjour, sometime after take-off, fought his way into the cockpit, and wrestled control of Flight 77 from a 6’4″ former Marine combat fighter pilot named Charles Burlingame, a man family members and colleagues say would never have given up his aircraft or the safety of his passengers. After dispatching with the co-pilot as well, Hanjour settled in and turned his attention to the bewildering array of gadgets and devices of a Boeing 757 instrument panel – a panel he was wholly unfamiliar with – in an airplane traveling 500 mph, 7 miles in the air, under the stress of a recently executed hijacking plot. Then, without the help of any ground control or air-traffic controllers providing him information and/or settings, this pilot who could not control a tiny Cessna 3 weeks earlier “would have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position.” (From the essay ‘The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training’, by Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer and pilot.)
From the Ohio/Kentucky border, Hanjour then supposedly turned the plane around, set course for Washigton D.C. hundreds of miles away, and successfully entered the most restricted airspace in the world without eliciting a single military intercept – despite the crash of two other known hijacked aircraft into the WTC, and a missing third, being covered on every radio and television station in the country. “In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with (Instrument Flight Rules) procedures. None of these fellows (the alleged hijackers) even knew what a navigational chart looked like, or even how to plug frequencies into NAV/COM radios, much less input information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.”
According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was ‘Flight 77’ (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, ‘The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'” (ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org)
The official story of Hanjour’s flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. “The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001.”
One year after the attacks, MSNBC’s Ashleigh Banfield mused, “It’s ironic says Pentagon Renovation Manager Lee Evey that the hijacked airliner smashed into the very area of the Pentagon that had just undergone a renovation to strengthen the building against a terrorist attack. The death toll could have been much worse. Evey said the hijacked aircraft hit a portion of the building that had been renovated and reinforced with blast resistant windows, a special reinforced steel construction, and even fire-resistant Kevlar cloth.”?(September 9, 2002 Monday TRANSCRIPT: # 090901cb.467) Ms. Manfield chooses the expression ‘ironic’ to describe these bizarre facts. That’s perhaps one word. Absurd and criminally suspicious could easily be two others.
So from a mile out, the man who could not properly land a Cessna at a small airport in Maryland weeks earlier, zeroes in on the conveniently chosen western façade of the Pentagon, flies 20 feet off the ground in a Boeing 757 at 400 mph, clips a number of lamp poles on his way in, apparently providing no adverse interference to his flight path, then runs into a tree and a generator trailer, before depositing the enormous aircraft perfectly in between the first and second floor of the United States’ military headquarters. Leaving no visible scratch on the Pentagon lawn, no large sections of airplane, no cars from the adjacent I-395 disturbed by the enormous jet-wake, and no publicly available video evidence of this incredible feat – despite the existence of at least 83 cameras on buildings and lamp posts encircling the Pentagon.
“I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)
“Furthermore, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot. At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan – until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.”
In response to Sagadevan’s essay, a pilot contacted the writer to report the following. And while it doesn’t reference Flight 77 specifically, surely the comments apply to all flights that morning. Including AA 77:
“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”
Quite tellingly, on the morning of 9/11, before the shock and awe and relentless re-telling and reshaping of the official story had a chance to trump all logic and critical analysis, this following clip shows other expert incomprehension as to the level of skill it would have required to carry out the flight maneuvers displayed in the strikes. It was broadcast on ABC news in the hours just after the attacks. Or consider this early speculation on the failure of navigation systems, before people even considered the unreasonable possibility of untrained pilots being able to fly huge airplanes with such expertise.
So who or what did? Could Flight 77, indeed all the aircrafts in question on the morning of 9/11, have somehow been over-ridden, or swapped out (as with the plan in Operation Northwoods) and then guided remotely by sophisticated navigation systems? The technology does exist to fly planes remotely – with a responsiveness and a sophistication far beyond the capacities of a human pilot. And in another of the wildly unbelievable coincidences that have proved commonplace in the narrative of 9/11, the former CEO of the world’s leading remote aviation technology company, System Planning Corporation, is Dov Zakheim. In May of 2001, four months before 9/11, Mr. Zakheim was appointed Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon – putting him in charge of the Defense Department’s vast, bottomless sums of money. Unsurprising, and even more intriguing, Zakheim was also a founding member and co-author of PNAC’s seminal document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, the document calling for the radical neo-Con restructuring of American foreign and domestic policy, a restructuring the authors famously said would be unlikely “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Why are these people not being investigated? Why are these coincidences and connections not being questioned and de-constructed by the media and investigators armed with subpoena power? Why am I, and random school teachers and college students and ‘unemployed hacks’, doing this work? How many dots do we need before they connect themselves?
A. Whistle Blowers
Defenders of the official story say over and over and over again, if 9/11 was truly an inside job, if these planes truly did pull off unreasonable maneuvers, if this conspiracy really was hatched, there would be a litany of whistle blowers trying to expose these crimes. The simple response to this comment is, there is. There is an enormous number of pilots, aeronautical engineers, FAA flight controllers, military officers, military intelligence operatives, intelligence analysts, FBI employees, and others with expertise in these fields who have come together into organizations with the explicit intent of exposing the crimes of 9/11. Here is a very short list of a few members of one of these ‘whistle-blower’ organizations, ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth’ – www.pilotsfor911truth.org
-Robert Balsamo 4000+ Total Flight Time Former: Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines
-Glen Stanish 15,000+ Total Flight Time American Airlines, ATA, TWA, Continental
-Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret) 30,000+ Total Flight Time Former Pan Am, United United States Air Force (ret) Over 100 Combat Missions Flown??
-John Lear Son of Bill Lear Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation More than 40 years of Flying 19,000+ Total Flight Time
-Captain Jeff Latas USAF (ret) Captain – JetBlue Airways
-Ted Muga Naval Aviator – Retired Commander, USNR
-Col Robert Bowman USAF (ret) Directed all the ‘Star Wars’ programs under Presidents Ford and Carter – 101 combat missions
-Alfons Olszewski Founder Veterans For Truth US Army (ret) Aircraft Maintenance Crew Chief
-Robin Hordon Former Boston Center Controller Commercial Pilot
-John Panarelli Friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski – Capt. AA #1111,000+ Total Flight Time Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo
-Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford United States Marine Corps (ret) 10,000+ Total Flight Time 303 Combat Missions
-Captain Dan Govatos 10,000+ Total Flight Time Former Chief Pilot of Casino Express airlines Director of Operations Training at Polar Air George
-Nelson Colonel USAF (Ret.) Licensed Commercial Pilot and Aircraft Mechanic
-Dennis Spear Army Aviator (ret) 7000+ Total Flight Time Operations Officer, Aviation Safety Officer
-Captain Joe H. Ferguson 30,000+ Total Flight Time (ret) USAF (ret)
Additional recordings would be played from the cockpit of an executive jet that tracked Flight 93 on Sept. 11″
“An official for NetJets, a company that sells shares in private business aircraft, confirmed that the plane tracking Flight 93 belonged to the company. The official, who asked not to be identified by name, said the company was asked not to comment on the Sept. 11 flight but would not say who made the request.” Finally someone admits that there was a plane up there when Flight 93 crashed. But who was it and why?”
“Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that a considerable portion of the global banking system is explicitly dedicated to handling the enormous volume of cash produced daily by dope traffickers.”
Great Game India said that contrary to popular opinion, “it is not ‘demand’ from the world’s population which creates the mind destroying drug trade.”
“Rather, it is the world financial oligarchy, looking for massive profits and the destruction of the minds of the population it is determined to dominate, which organized the drug trade. The case of HSBC underscores that point. Serving as the central bank of this global apparatus, is HSBC.”
Great Game India traced HSBC back to the 1890s when British intelligence agents operating the drug trade in the Opium Wars launched the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank Corporation “as a repository for their opium proceeds.”
‘A criminal organization’
Cruz began working at HSBC on Jan. 14, 2008, as a commercial bank accounts relationship manager, and was terminated for “poor job performance” on Feb. 17, 2010, after he refused to stop investigating the HSBC criminal money-laundering scheme from within the bank.
Cruz worked in the HSBC southern New York region, which accounts for approximately 50 percent of HSBC’s North American revenue. He was assigned to work with several branch managers to identify accounts to which HSBC might introduce additional banking services.
Cruz told WND he recorded hundreds of hours of meetings he conducted with HSBC management and bank security personnel in which he charged various bank managers were engaging in criminal acts.
“I have hours and hours of recordings, ranging from bank tellers, to business representatives, to branch managers, to executives,” he said. “The whole system is designed to be a culture of fraud to make it look like it’s a legal system. But it’s not.”
Cruz explained that after many repeated efforts, he gave up on the idea that HSBC senior management or bank security would pursue his allegations to investigate and stop the wrongdoing.
“My conclusion was that HSBC wasn’t going to do anything about this account, because HSBC management from the branch level, to senior bank security, to executive senior management was involved in the illegal activity I found,” he said.
Despite repeated attempts to bring the information to the attention of law enforcement officers, Cruz hit a brick wall until WND examined his documentation and determined his allegations were sufficiently substantiated to merit publication.
“HSBC is a criminal organization,” Cruz stressed. “It is a culture of crime.”
“OAT / NETJETS EUROPE CADET PROGRAMME
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What is the purpose of the joint OAT/NetJets Europe Cadet Programme?
NetJets Europe is the leading private jet operator in Europe and conducts operations around the world. They are undergoing a programme of expansion and have identified a requirement to recruit a number of highly motivated, suitably qualified young men and women of European Union or Swiss citizenship to join them as First Officers. Those initially selected will enter training at Oxford Aviation Training on an integrated APP First Officer (APP FO) ATPL training course commencing in either May, June or August 2007 and should enter the airline as a First Officer under training from late 2008. Further courses are planned for later in the year.
What can you tell me about Oxford Aviation Training?
OAT is one of the largest and best known Flight Training Schools in the world. Since 1964, it has trained more than 16,000 pilots for many of the world’s major airlines. At its two Airline Training Centres, in Oxford, England and Phoenix, Arizona, OAT provides state-of-the-art facilities, highly-experienced instructors and unsurpassed training.
What can you tell me about NetJets Europe?
NetJets Europe operates business jets on a fractional ownership basis. NetJets has over 1,250 owners and cardholders who currently share 114 jets with an average age of 2.5 years. NetJets Europe has grown over the last 10 years since inception to become the ninth largest airline in Europe in terms of fleet size. The company is more than 6 times the size of the next largest business jet operator in Europe.
NetJets Europe currently operates the following aircraft types:
* Cessna Citation Bravo
* Hawker 400XP
* Cessna Citation Excel/XLS
* Hawker 800XP/XPC
* Falcon 2000, 2000EX, 900, 900EX
* Gulfstream GIV-SP, V, 550
How much will the course cost?
Under the cadet training programme OAT training will cost £61,800 plus £4,000 for the CAA test fees (2007 figures). Included in the price are 20 weeks room only accommodation in Phoenix plus the two weeks accommodation during the additional aerobatic/unusual attitude advance handling and VFR training courses. This will mean that you will need to cover any other expenses, which are effectively limited to approximately 43 weeks Oxford accommodation and food, (estimated cost of £9,000) given that all other costs are already encompassed within the course fee. The total estimated cost is approximately £75,000.
OAT offers a bespoke HSBC loan programme for all APP FO students. Based on this programme, OAT/NetJets Europe cadets will qualify for a loan of up to £60,000, subject to meeting agreed HSBC/NetJets requirements. The loan will be paid off through salary deductions over a period of 5 to 6 years.
Successful candidates will be required to deposit £9,000 into a HSBC deposit account prior to commencement of the course, which will be refunded to their loan account, plus interest, once they have successfully completed their multi-engine commercial flight test (approximately 50 weeks into the course).”
Britain’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) is considering plans to allow 30- or 40 percent more business aviation traffic at the Royal Air Force’s London-area Northolt base. At the same time, newly formed Northolt Business Aviation is preparing to offer unused air force hangar space to corporate operators.
The MoD is now contemplating an application to increase annual civil movements permitted at the airfield from 7,000 to 9,000 or 10,000. The basis for the increase, which has been requested by civil operators and service companies active at the airfield, is that the number of military movements at the site has declined since 10 years ago, when the current limit was set. The airport is located just 12 mi west of London, about three miles north of Heathrow Airport and close to the M25 beltway.
Local politicians and residents have been steadfastly opposed to increased civil traffic at Northolt. This opposition is being countered by the argument that modern business aircraft are significantly quieter than the military transports that have used the airfield.
Rising demand for RAF Northolt as an alternative business aviation gateway to the UK capital cannot be met by current limits, with controllers having to ration slots so as not to exceed the 7,000-movement annual quota. Operators have complained that this rationing is handled in a somewhat irrational, bureaucratic way, rather than acknowledging that business aviation traffic tends to be lighter in the vacation months of July and August and allowing the movements to be spread more evenly over the busier months. At press time the annual slots quota for 2002 had been almost exhausted, forcing some operators to use alternatives such as Farnborough.
The RAF station commander at Northolt is actively encouraged by the MoD to generate commercial revenue from the base by using “irreducible spare capacity.”
Crucially, he cannot increase the deployment of RAF personnel specifically to provide for civil operations. With the number of military operations progressively decreasing, this spare capacity is necessarily increasing. That said, with a possible war with Iraq looming it remains to be seen whether this might delay any plans to allow a larger civil aviation presence at the strategically located airfield.
Meanwhile, the aforementioned Northolt Business Aviation, established two years ago by Peter Riley, former director of flight operations for UK media group Granada, has leased Northolt’s Hangar 311 from the UK government’s Defence Estates agency and has signed a deal that enables NetJets Europe to use the building as its forward operating base. As of early last month, the fractional provider has been operating some of its 38-aircraft fleet out of Northolt to take advantage of its proximity to central London. By July, the NetJets Europe fleet is set to rise to 60 aircraft.
Riley, a former RAF fighter pilot, told AIN that the NetJets activity should not constrain other business aviation flying at Northolt because the aircraft will rotate through the airfield as necessary, rather than being permanently based there. In fact, the total number of NetJets movements in and out of Northolt should probably decrease because the operator has previously had to resort to a lot of positioning flights to and from other London-area airports. By being nominally based at Northolt, it will benefit from preferential access to weekend slots and to the more economical civil aircraft fuel supply provided by Air BP.
NetJets is establishing its own JAR 145 maintenance operation at the base to support its own aircraft. Its overall European operation will continue to be managed from its headquarters in Lisbon, Portugal.
The Granada flight department had itself been based at Northolt until it was mothballed six months ago. The company is now trying to sell its 1987 Hawker 800.
Maintenance for other based and transient civil aircraft is available from Serco, which is bidding to provide support for the NetJets operations at Northolt. The JAR 145-certified operation already provides support for the two BAE 146s and six Hawkers operated by the Royal Air Force to transport members of Britain’s royal family, as well as government ministers and officials. This operation falls under the auspices of the RAF’s No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron, which was formed from the 1997 amalgamation of the Queen’s Flight (then based at RAF Benson) and 32 Squadron’s government flight department.
The MoD is planning to build a new hangar next to the Northolt operations building, which doubles as a terminal for business aviation. The new building would mainly house The Royal Squadron’s aircraft, but will offer additional capacity for corporate operators.
Separately, the RAF is evaluating possible replacement aircraft for the 146s and Hawkers. Options being considered include the Gulfstream V and Bombardier Global Express, both of which could provide significantly greater range than is possible with the existing fleet.
Ground handling for business aircraft is provided by Northolt Handling, a joint venture between Regional Airports (owner of London-area Biggin Hill and Southend Airports) and Serco under a four-year license that started in July 2001. It will provide handling for the NetJets aircraft and already provides other visiting operators with ad hoc covered aircraft parking in Northolt’s Hangars 5 and 6.
Slots at Northolt are available strictly by prior arrangement, with the official deadline for requests being 3:30 p.m. on the preceding day. In some instances, Northolt Handling is able to secure slots on somewhat shorter notice since it works with the RAF controllers on flight planning for civil movements.
Northolt Handling manager Robert Walters told AIN that the average number of movements each day is around 30, a number that peaked as high as 50 during busy periods last year. The FBO now has almost 150 regular customers.
The airfield’s official opening hours for civil flights are 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on weekdays. Based operators can sometimes get permission for flights outside these hours and on weekends, provided the airfield is open for military operations at the time. When a slot is not available, Northolt Handling tries to redirect flights to its sister airports at Biggin Hill (12 mi southeast of London) and Southend (37 mi to the east and open 24/7).
Northolt’s main runway is 5,525 ft long, which allows larger business jets such as the Falcon 900 to take off fully loaded. Larger aircraft such as the Boeing Business Jet can also use the airfield, but are limited by pavement-strength issues to around a dozen movements per year.
Landing fees go directly to the RAF and are among the most costly in the London area. A GIV operator, for example, would pay around £1,100 ($1,700). RAF Northolt currently collects almost $2 million in civil landing fees annually and is ranked as one of Britain’s most commercially viable air force bases.
Handling fees are charged in the following four mtow categories: £90 ($140) for up to 10 metric tons (22,046 lb); £120 ($186) for between 10 and 20 metric tons (up to 44,092 lb); £150 ($233) for between 20 and 40 metric tons (up to 88,184 lb); and £180 ($279) for aircraft over 40 metric tons. The Northolt landing fee covers use of a ground power unit and lavatory service for the aircraft. The handling fee covers all other ground services.
Northolt Handling currently has three staff members besides Walters, and it is about to add another. Supplementary baggage handling can be provided by RAF personnel during busy periods. In addition to Serco, which now manages the RAF’s visiting aircraft servicing operation, line maintenance and repairs can be conducted by Jet Aviation, which dispatches mechanics from its Biggin Hill operation.
Visiting aircraft generally have to purchase fuel from RAF supplies at somewhat elevated prices. For based aircraft, and by special arrangement, fuel can be supplied by Air BP.”
May 16, 2012 CAE has acquired Oxford Aviation Academy (OAA), an industry-leading provider of aviation training and crew sourcing services for C$314 million. This acquisition strengthens CAE’s leadership and global reach in civil aviation training by increasing its training centre footprint, growing its Ab-Initio flight training network and extending its portfolio by adding OAA’s Parc Aviation, the global leader in pilot and maintenance crew sourcing for airlines and leasing companies.
« We are very excited about this acquisition as it enables us to offer our customers more locations and additional training capacity as well as a new service for pilot and maintenance crew sourcing. We have greatly enhanced CAE’s industry-leading position with the addition of two of the industry’s strongest brands in Ab-Initio aviation training and crew sourcing: Oxford Aviation Academy and Parc Aviation, » said Marc Parent, CAE’s President and CEO. « Civil aerospace market fundamentals are strong and we are increasing our position at an opportune time. With this acquisition, CAE responds to market demand with an increased footprint and a complete end-to-end solution for commercial aviation. »
The acquisition strengthens CAE’s position in capturing the long-term and growing market demand for aviation professionals:
— Adds seven new civil aviation training centres offering pilot, maintenance and cabin crew training to its global network for a total of 42 civil training locations worldwide
— Adds 40 full-flight simulators for a total of 211 full-flight simulators
— Adds four of the industry’s most renowned flight academies (Ab-Initio flight training organizations) with a capacity to train over 600 cadets annually, for a total CAE-operated network of 12 flight schools with a capacity to train 1,500 cadets annually. The Oxford Aviation Academy has enjoyed a 50-year pedigree of excellence, and the CAE-operated flight schools will now be branded CAE Oxford Aviation Academy
— Broadens portfolio by extending into pilot and maintenance crew sourcing through Parc Aviation, which currently provides 1,200 aviation personnel on assignment to 50 airlines and leasing companies in 40 countries, primarily in Asia. Parc Aviation will now be branded CAE Parc Aviation Personnel.
Oxford Aviation Academy (OAA) had revenues of approximately C$280 million during CAE’s fiscal year 2012 and the purchase price represents approximately 9 times OAA’s EBITDA during the same period. The acquisition will be accretive to CAE’s earnings in fiscal year 2014.
CAE has financed the acquisition with a new senior unsecured credit facility.
Operate under The Military Aviation Authority (MAA) & Maintenance Approved Organisation Scheme (MAOS) rules.
Fly on the BAe 146 CC2 of No32 (TR) Squadron, RAF (an amalgamation of The Queen’s Flight and 32 Squadron RAF) as a civilian Engineering Specialist. Duties include setting up the aircraft and testing all systems. Carry out all servicing and rectification and solely responsible for engineering standards whilst away from base. Fly worldwide on Royal/VVIP Tours, often for extended periods and was the engineer on all of HRH The Duke of Edinburgh’s BAe 146 tasks for approximately six years until his retirement from flying.
Responsible for training and annual assessment of all the new BAe 146 Crew Chiefs, ensuring they continue to meet exacting engineering standards. Accompany Test Pilots on full Air Tests on an annual basis and on any Air Checks. Carry out diagnosis, rectification and functionals of all systems, including ground running of the engines and APU, also take part in hangar servicing of the BAe 146 at all levels up to C check.
Completed all the manufacturers BAe 146 training courses, Airframe, Engine, Electrics, Avionic and SEP10 Autopilot course.”
Field McConnell, United States Naval Academy, 1971; Forensic Economist; 30 year airline and 22 year military pilot; 23,000 hours of safety; Tel: 715 307 8222
David Hawkins Tel: 604 542-0891 Forensic Economist; former leader of oil-well blow-out teams; now sponsors Grand Juries in CSI Crime and Safety Investigation