Prosecutor: Deliberate attempt to destroy aircraft
Serco… Would you like to know more?
SWISSLEAKS – “HSBC developed dangerous clients:
arms merchants, drug dealers, terrorism financiers”
Copy of SERCO GROUP PLC: List of Subsidiaries AND Shareholders! (Mobile Playback Version) [Note that HSBC is Serco’s banker and, with Allianz and Her Majesty’s Government, one of Serco’s major shareholders]
“Black box memory card stolen from crash site of Germanwings jetliner? Plausible cover-up theories now taking shape
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Tags: Germanwings, black box, cover-up
(NaturalNews) For some reason we have yet to fully understand, jetliners keep disappearing or falling out of the sky with disturbing regularity. Air travel is amazingly safe, of course. Statistically, it produces far fewer injuries and deaths than vaccine shots which injure so many children that the United States Congress was forced to set up a special “vaccine court” just to handle all the injury claims and billions of dollars in compensation payouts.
But the circumstances under which jetliners keep disappearing smack of conspiracy and cover-ups. Flight MH370, for example, has still never been located. In July of last year, I was the first independent media journalists to suggest the plane had been hijacked. Mainstream media outlets like CNN ridiculed the theory, but just this month CNN began rolling out the exact same explanation, now claiming the jetliner was, indeed, hijacked. (Funny how CNN’s narratives completely flip-flop over time, isn’t it?)
Now with the Germanwings jetliner incident, we have the New York Times “pulling a CNN,” you might say. According to this NYT story, the memory card of one of the airplane’s two black boxes is missing, and the story claims it must have been “destroyed by the impact.”
“Investigators have so far been unable to retrieve data from one black box, and the other was badly damaged and its memory card was missing,” reports the New York Times.
If you read the logic of that sentence, it seems to state that no data was recovered from either black box, right?
But then in the exact same story, the NYT also reports, “Remi Jouty, director of France’s Bureau of Investigation and Analysis, confirmed that audio of voices had been recovered from the black box in the crash of the Germanwings plane in the French Alps.”
So, wait: there WAS voice recording data recovered from one of the black boxes? Confusing things even further, another paragraph in the same story says:
At the crash site, a senior official working on the investigation said, workers found the casing of the plane’s other black box, the flight data recorder, but the memory card containing data on the plane’s altitude, speed, location and condition was not inside, apparently having been thrown loose or destroyed by the impact.
So what we really have here is a story about two black boxes: one which either has voice data on it or doesn’t have voice data on it, and the other black box which we are supposed to believe was located but the memory card it protects was missing because it was destroyed even though it was surrounded by a black box that’s almost impervious to destruction.
Black boxes are designed to survive plane crashes… DOH!
Now, those of you who understand the laws of physics — which obviously makes you a terrorist in modern America where any real grasp of scientific reality is widely condemned — know that black boxes are designed for the precise purpose of making sure nothing inside them gets destroyed even in a violent airplane explosion or impact crash.
If black boxes did not survive plane crashes, there would be no real point in having them in the first place.
It’s nearly impossible to destroy these black boxes — which are really orange — without resorting to extreme methods of destruction. As this NPR story explains, “The black box must be able to withstand an acceleration of 3,400 Gs (3,400 times the force of gravity)…”
To test the structural integrity of a black box, “[a]t 3,400 Gs,” adds HowStuffWorks.com, “the CSMU hits an aluminum honeycomb target at a force equal to 3,400 times its weight. This impact force is equal to or in excess of what a recorder might experience in an actual crash.”
What the New York Times is now asserting, against all known laws of physics, is that a black box was found, it was opened, the memory card was missing and therefore it must have been “thrown loose or destroyed.”
Consider the unlikelihood of such a claim being true. It mirrors the similarly ludicrous claim after 9/11 that the terrorist’s passports survived the crash and were found on the sidewalk below the building… but the aircraft black boxes were all destroyed in the crash, of course. And like magic, we’re all supposed to believe that U.S. passports will survive an extremely hot explosion that melts steel girders and collapses buildings, but a black box — which is DESIGNED to be blown up and still survive — somehow “lost” its memory card as a jetliner descended into terrain.
The far more reasonable explanation, of course — which also happens to be aligned with the laws of physics — is that someone took the memory card out of the black box, which is why it’s no longer in the black box.
If you scan a quick history of mysterious plane crashes that might be linked to rogue nations or government-run operations, you’ll notice that the black boxes are missing from ALL such plane crashes: 9/11, Malaysia Airlines, this Germanwings flight and no doubt many others. Black boxes, it seems, are only found intact when governments want to find them intact.
Why would someone want to take the memory card out of the black box?
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the only reason someone who remove the memory card from the black box is because they won’t want the world to find out what’s on the memory card.
And what is stored on these memory cards, exactly? Audible recordings of the flight deck and a detailed digital log of every flight command, environmental variable, flight control surface, altitude, heading, airspeed and everything else you might imagine is important in an airliner crash investigation. Black boxes contain all the data needed to entirely reconstruct the accident and find out what happened.
If someone carried out the attack on purpose, they could have easily been pre-positioned on the ground, ready to rush to the wreckage and pull the memory card. Black boxes are not terribly difficult to find if the wreckage is sufficiently broken apart. They’re bright orange and unmistakable to identify, even in a pile of wreckage. They are designed to scream out “FIND ME!” in a mass of rubble. Because of the rugged terrain, it took rescue workers many hours to even arrive at the scene, leaving plenty of time for someone with a pre-positioned ground-based scout team to reach the wreckage first.
Why were the pilots apparently unconscious?
One reasonable working theory in all this is that some rogue government wanted to kill someone on the plane but make it look like an accident. Somehow they managed to incapacitate the pilots and then put the plane into a controlled descent into terrain, the theory goes.
“Among the theories that have been put forward by air safety analysts not involved in the investigation is the possibility that the pilots could have been incapacitated by a sudden event such as a fire or a drop in cabin pressure,” reports the NYT. “A senior French official involved in the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the lack of communication from the pilots during the plane’s descent was disturbing, and that the possibility that their silence was deliberate could not be ruled out.”
On this point, I concur. Commercial pilots are incredibly well trained and tend to be very intelligent people. If they were conscious, they would have absolutely noticed the altitude descent, especially when flying among high-altitude mountains. All pilots who are still living are fully aware that if your aircraft altitude goes LOWER than the height of the nearby mountains, you probably need to go full throttle and climb. Monitoring your altitude is one of the very first things all pilots are taught (airspeed, altitude and heading, actually), and commercial pilots are taught to scan their instruments on a regular basis to watch for unexpected readings.
On top of that, pilots tend to be people who prefer to be living rather than dead. In fact, one of the best assurances of pilots doing a good job flying commercial airliners is the inescapable fact that they are on board that same airliner. (Never fly in an aircraft remotely piloted via drone technology, if it ever comes to that…)
Thus, pilots tend to keep passengers alive because they want to keep themselves alive, too. It is almost inconceivable that the two pilots of this Airbus A320 would have both failed to notice the descent in mountainous terrain. The fact that the aircraft obviously did not suffer a sudden flight control failure also means it was not blown up in mid-air.
“ USA and Europe hone air security
By: JOHN CROFT
00:00 23 Jan 2007
Last week’s first revenue flight of a FedEx Express Boeing MD-10 freighter carrying a Northrop Grumman laser anti-missile system spotlights progress with counter-terrorism technologies aimed at making commercial airliners more difficult to commandeer or shoot down.
Areas of active research and development in the USA and Europe include defeating man-portable air-defence systems (Manpads) hardening cargo containers and aircraft structures against explosions providing more-secure identification of passengers and crews and finding ways to take control away from the cockpit if an aircraft strays from its planned track.
In the USA, the bulk of counter-terror work is being done under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and, to a lesser extent, the Federal Aviation Administration. Several aerospace companies are also developing concepts or systems on their own.
Across the Atlantic, technologies are being pursued under the Security of Aircraft in the Future European Environment (SAFEE) programme – a four-year, €37 million ($48 million) effort that began in 2004, funded 50:50 by the European Commission and industry. Under the programme, Airbus, BAE Systems, Sagem, Thales and Dutch national aerospace laboratory NLR are overseeing key initiatives with the help of 26 additional companies. Focus areas include on-board threat detection systems, threat assessment and response management, and automatic guidance systems to safely secure an aircraft under siege.
Thales Avionics this year plans to begin testing a ground simulation of an anti-hijack system that monitors the aircraft’s flight based on pre-planned waypoints in an on-board database. Sagem Défense Sécurité’s Daniel Gaultier, co-ordinator of the SAFEE programme, says the idea is to prevent the aircraft from entering sensitive areas, special events or target areas like nuclear powerplants. “We are developing this type of authentication to make terrorists know it will be very difficult to take control [of the aircraft],” he says.
If the system senses an “uncontrolled behaviour or trajectory”, the software will first ask the pilot and co-pilot to authenticate their presence in the cockpit to verify the aircraft has a minimum crew. If the query produces an unsatisfactory result, the system will then take control of the aircraft for an undetermined duration, not to include landing. “We have not developed this as far as the landing process,” says Gaultier. “The main problem is pilots accepting the complete landing by the system.”
Ideally, terrorists would not have made it into the cockpit through the SAFEE safety net. Airbus has designed a threat detection system that uses video cameras and microphones in the cabin to alert pilots to suspicious or strange passenger behaviour. The company is planning to simulate the system early next year. NLR this year will test a cockpit-door biometric entry pad that uses fingerprint identification technology developed by Sagem, rather than a traditional keypad, to control access to the cockpit.
In the USA, the DHS’s main priority is the Counter-Manpads programme, launched by Congress in 2003 and now in its third phase of development. Other work includes aircraft and cargo hardening efforts and Propulsion Control for Aircraft Recovery (PCAR). The FAA, which transferred most of its security functions to the DHS after its creation in 2002 and completed its cockpit door fortification programme in 2003, is also advocating more robust structures. The agency has proposed a rule requiring manufacturers to strengthen future aircraft structures to better withstand an in-flight explosion and to evacuate smoke, fumes or gas from the cabin and cockpit.
Under the latest phase of the $140 million Counter-Manpads initiative, directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) systems developed by BAE Systems and Northrop will fly on board cargo aircraft to evaluate how the equipment performs in revenue service. Military DIRCMs require maintenance after about 300h of use, a number the DHS is hoping to boost significantly to reduce maintenance costs, estimated at around $10 billion a year if the entire US commercial fleet were equipped. “Our goal is to achieve a reliability of at least 3,000 mean flight hours between failure [MFHBF] in order to meet the heavy maintenance cycles for airlines,” says the DHS. “The equipment tested in Phase 2, and now in Phase 3, indicates an expected mean time between failure of approximately 1,000h for widebody fleet implementation.”
FedEx began flying its first MD-10 with Northrop’s Guardian DIRCM in revenue service last week, and is in the process of equipping 10 additional MD-10s to carry the countermeasures pod, which attaches to the bottom of the aircraft. FedEx plans to accumulate 12,000h on nine units by the time the test ends next March. Northrop has FAA certification for the Guardian on the Boeing 747 as well as the MD-10 and MD-11. BAE is readying its JetEye DIRCM on an ABX Boeing 767 freighter for a similar test.
Both companies are attempting to partner commercial airlines to test their systems in passenger service in anticipation of a tender from the DHS. Congress included $35 million for the initiative in this year’s budget. Herman Rediess, programme executive for aircraft protection programmes and Counter-Manpads manager in DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate, says he expects to have the first passenger aircraft fitted and certificated for the systems before year’s end.
Congress has allotted an extra $10 million in 2007 for alternative counter-Manpads measures, and the DHS in October awarded three 18-month assessment contracts. Raytheon is investigating an airport-based deterrent that uses IR senors to detect missiles and high-power microwave beams to disrupt their guidance systems Northrop is assessing a ground-based system that uses high-energy chemical lasers to destroy the missile and L-3 Avisys is researching an airborne self-protection system that dispenses pyrophoric flares as decoys.
Perhaps the most crucial DIRCM test will come later this year at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Although the DHS has “extensively tested” the systems with hardware-in-the-loop tests and simulated missile engagements, the White Sands trials will be the first live-fire tests, says Rediess.
Each DIRCM’s component parts will be mounted on a cable car, suspended 1,000ft (300m) up between two mountains, and fired upon by “a wide variety” of missiles whose warheads have been replaced by telemetry systems – tests already conducted with military DIRCMs. The DHS has not decided whether the gondola will be fixed or moving, says Rediess. White Sands says the platforms can be propelled as fast as 250kt (460km/h).
Other ongoing DHS work includes testing of blast-proof cargo liners that may protect against explosive charges too small to be detected accurately by luggage screening systems, as well as continuing work on PCAR. Rediess says the DHS this year will conclude a study with NASA andUnited Airlines to evaluate the extent of the flight envelope where propulsion-only control is viable as a back-up control means for various Airbus and Boeing aircraft.
The DHS and NASA had earlier tested manual control scenarios (using throttles) down to 100ft with United pilots flying Boeing 757s on simulated revenue flights. Throttle-only control can be used as a back-up mode if primary flight control is lost to a missile attack, on-board explosives or non-terrorist-related failures, although its success is dependent on aircraft type, pilot training and other variables.
Rediess says the DHS is not pursuing a more comprehensive anti-hijack system similar to the Thales project for SAFEE. “The American operational concept, supported by Boeing and the Air Line Pilots Association, is the pilot is the last line of defence,” he says. “They want nothing that prevents them from taking control. They’re more worried about losing control during normal operations by an error.”
But Boeing does appear to be at least pondering a change to that stance. The company in December received a patent for an “uninterruptible” system that, once activated, would remove all control from those on board the aircraft, fly to a predetermined or externally commanded airfield and automatically land. The system could be activated by force sensors on the cockpit door or by an external communications link if ground monitoring revealed an anomalous trajectory. Boeing declines to comment.
A similar, but less comprehensive anti-hijack device has been patented and demonstrated by Honeywell. Based on the company’s enhanced ground proximity warning system, the device overrides pilot input and flies an automatic recovery if the aircraft is put on a trajectory that would come into contact with objects on the ground, particularly buildings or restricted airspace (see diagram). Honeywell demonstrated the concept using a fly-by-wire Airbus A319 in April 2005, as well as in its Beech King Air testbed, but it has not formally announced a product.”
“ From the early days of the Republic, Congress and the federal courts grappled with the government’s rights to own or use patents it issued. Courts rejected the British “Crown Rights” rule that allowed the sovereign to practice whatever patents it issued. Instead, the federal government was conceptualized as a legal person on par with any other persons with regard to issued patents. But, this simple rule presented challenges as complexities arose in three intertwined patent rights scenarios. The first involved inventions by government employees. The second revolved around government and government contractor use of patents held by private citizens. And the third involved inventions by federal contractors and their employees arising under federal funding. While these three scenarios seem quite distinct today, nineteenth and early twentieth century courts often treated them as overlapping. The confusion was not resolved until the mid-twentieth century when a combination of executive branch and Congressional legislation set the roots of current government patent policy. This Article reviews the history in detail and illuminates current government patent policy debate occurring through such seemingly diverse cases as Stanford v. Roche and Zoltek Corp. v. United States.”
“ Serco Awarded $170m Air Traffic Control contract with the Federal Aviation Administration
Date : 01 February 2010
Serco has been awarded a contract to support the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Contract Tower (FCT) Program. Under this contract, Serco will provide air traffic control services at 64 sites in the United States and Pacific region. The contract is valued at approximately $170m over 5 years.
Since 1994, Serco has managed approximately 55 towers. Through this contract win, Serco will now be responsible for a total of 64 sites spread across the western United States and Alaska, including new locations in Hawaii, Guam and Saipan. The company will provide air traffic control services in the tower to support the safety of incoming/outgoing aircraft, improve the efficiency of air traffic and provide information and support to the pilots.
“We employ over 300 air traffic controllers providing safe and efficient air traffic control services at over 60 airports. This win extends our long-term relationship with the FAA as an integral contributor to the National Airspace System,” said Steve Christmas, Vice President of Aviation at Serco.
As part of Serco Group, one of the largest contracted providers of Air Navigation Services worldwide, the company is responsible for more than 960,000 miles of airspace and handles more than six million aircraft movements a year. Serco employs more than 700 air traffic control specialists at over 75 airports – located in the U.S., U.K. and Middle East – who help maintain flight safety. In the US, the company has also been honored with the prestigious Willie F. Card Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Contract Tower Award 5 out of the past 7 years at towers in Lewiston, ID (2003), Phoenix-Mesa Gateway, AZ (2004), Jackson Hole, WY (2005), Goodyear, AZ (2008), and San Luis Obispo, CA (2009).”
“ Serco Processes 2 Millionth Patent Application for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
March 19, 2013 RESTON, VIRGINIA – March 18, 2013 – Serco Inc., a leading provider of professional, technology, and management services to the federal government, announced today that their Pre-Grant Publication (PGPubs) Classification Services team recently processed their 2 millionth patent application for the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). Each application was also processed within the contractually required 28-day window.”
“ Anti-hijacking cockpit door system for aircraft US 20030052779 A1 ABSTRACT An aircraft cockpit door system is disclosed comprising a bulletproof cockpit door and bulkhead, and a bulletproof lavatory isolation door and bulkhead. A logic control circuit alternately locks the two doors, keeping the cockpit crew at all times isolated from other persons aboard the craft to ensure the safety of the cockpit crew, and ultimately the aircraft.”
“ Airliner irreversible-control anti-hijack system US 6845302 B2 ABSTRACT Directed toward universal commercial-airliner application as an air/ground-lifesaving function, this cost-effective retrofitable system enables airliner-pilots to conveniently actuate an inconspicuous AIRCIA™/enable-switch,—thereby instantly disabling onboard flight-commands to render the airliner’s guidance-system irretrievably placed into total reliance upon its existing autopilot-system in RF-communication with encrypted remote ground/air-intercept personnel. Acting to virtually confound any criminal-attempt by a hijacker to commandeer an airliner, the airliner thus becomes flown only as directed by an authorized remote/flight-control station in cooperation with the airliner’s remotely-reprogrammed onboard avionics-system, automatically vectoring the airliner to land safely via the existing avionics/autopilot-system at a designated airport. The AIRCIA™-system is initially verified for flight-worthiness operation upon every routine preflight/check-list procedure, its master ECU/restore-switch being accessible externally of the aircraft-interior. Support-system options include SmartCard®-interfacing, and automatic is engagement of AIRCIA™-system in event of natural-cause pilot-incapacitation, and ATI (automatic/tranquil-Infusion) which introduces tranquilizing-gas into the airliner’s entire interior.”
“Information Security Services
Information Security Planning is the process whereby an organization seeks to protect its operations and assets from data theft or computer hackers that seek to obtain unauthorized information or sabotage business operations. Without a properly planned and managed Information Security Plan, an organization runs the risk of law suits, loss of data, compromised operations and loss of reputation. Our experts have secured some of the world largest and most complex commercial and carrier networks, as well as conducted extensive analysis and implementation work on some of the Federal Government’s most sensitive and critical environments, such as the FAA.
Base One Technologies takes your information security needs seriously! We conduct business analysis, install solutions and protect your network from unauthorized entry and data loss. We are there in the beginning to provide guidance and support to your data security program, through to implementation and eventually during the support life cycle providing process and procedures for incident reporting, analysis and counter measures.
Base One Technologies
Expertly researches, designs, and develops information security policies that protect your data and manage your firm’s information technology risk at levels acceptable to your business.
Performs architectural assessments and conducts both internal and external penetration testing. The results of these efforts culminate in an extensive risk analysis and vulnerabilities report.
Develops and implements multi-layer Information Security Solutions, practices and procedures. We deploy Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) and IP Security with VPN solutions using Cisco routers, Frame Relay, firewalls, address and port translation, obscurity standards and authentication technologies (AAA, 3DES, TACACS, etcŠ), to enhance and meet the level of Data Security required for global organizations.
Conducts IT Security and Risk Assessment in Federal government as well as security testing, implementing security for multiple platforms and operating systems around the world.
Ability to conduct business process analysis to provide technical security countermeasures, risk management and data communications security planning for large organizations.
Provides computer security integration for web server and traditional client-server based applications. We secure environments up to as many layers as required by our clients’ policies, industry practices, and regulating bodies – including the desktop and user experience as required.
Develops, implements and supports Information Security Counter measures such as honey-pots and evidence logging and incident documentation processes and solutions.”
111 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
Base One Technologies, Ltd. is a DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION, located in New York, NY and was formed on Feb 15, 1994. This file was obtained from the Secretary of State and has a file number of 1795583.
This business was created 7,695 days ago in the New York SOS Office and the registered agent is C T Corporation System that does business at 111 Eighth Avenue , New York in New York.
After conducting a search for principals and owners of Base One Technologies, Ltd., we were able to find 2 owners and/or executives. Their information is listed below.
This file was last updated on May 14, 2013.
Liza R Zaneri
Chief Executive Officer
15 Irving Place
New Rochelle, NY 10801
Liza R Zaneri
Principal Executive Office
15 Irving Place
New Rochelle, NY 10801
C T Corporation System
111 EIGHTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10011
“SOURCE: Base One Technologies
September 02, 2008 09:00 ET
Base One Technologies, Inc. Continues Operations in Government Space
NEW ROCHELLE, NY–(Marketwire – September 2, 2008) – Base One Technologies, Inc. is pleased to announce that it has sold its affiliate, Base One Technologies Ltd., to Apptis Inc. Base One Technologies, Inc. will continue to compete in the government space as an 8(a), HubZone and Woman Owned Small Disadvantage Company. Base One Technologies, Inc. is an IT Engineering and Technical Services company founded in 1994. Base One has a Top Secret Facilities Clearance and specializes in: Enterprise Architecture, Network Infrastructure Support, Data Security, Software & Database Services, Disaster Recovery & Contingency Planning, and Independent Validation & Verification. Base One is a privately-held organization with headquarters in New Rochelle, NY. For more information visit: www.base-one.com.
About Base One Technologies
Base One Technologies, Inc. is an IT Engineering and Technical Services company certified as an 8(a), Woman Owned, SDB, HUBZone Business. Founded in 1994, Base One has a Top Secret Facilities Clearance and specializes in: Enterprise Architecture, Network Infrastructure Support, Data Security, Software & Database Services, Disaster Recovery & Contingency Planning, and Independent Validation & Verification. Please visit www.base-one.com for more information.
Liza R. Zaneri
Base One Technologies
914 633-0200 x205
“Serco’s Office of Partner Relations (OPR) helps facilitate our aggressive small business utilization and growth strategies. Through the OPR, Serco mentors four local small businesses under formal Mentor Protégé Agreements: Three sponsored by DHS ( Base One Technologies, TSymmetry, Inc., and HeiTech Services, Inc.,) and the fourth sponsored by GSA (DKW Communications, Inc.). Serco and HeiTech Services were awarded the 2007 DHS Mentor Protégé Team Award for exceeding our mentoring goals.” http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/100515p.pdf
“Opened in 1994 as the successor to the Transitional Immigrant Visa Processing Center in Rosslyn, Va., the NVC centralizes all immigrant visa preprocessing and appointment scheduling for overseas posts. The NVC collects paperwork and fees before forwarding a case, ready for adjudication, to the responsible post.
The center also handles immigrant and fiancé visa petitions, and while it does not adjudicate visa applications, it provides technical assistance and support to visa-adjudicating consular officials overseas.
Only two Foreign Service officers, the director and deputy director, work at the center, along with just five Civil Service employees. They work with almost 500 contract employees doing preprocessing of visas, making the center one of the largest employers in the Portsmouth area.
The contractor, Serco, Inc., has worked with the NVC since its inception and with the Department for almost 18 years.
The NVC houses more than 2.6 million immigrant visa files, receives almost two million pieces of mail per year and received more than half a million petitions from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) in 2011. Its file rooms’ high-density shelves are stacked floor-to-ceiling with files, each a collection of someone’s hopes and dreams and each requiring proper handling.
The NVC also preprocesses the chief of mission (COM) application required for the filing of a petition for a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV). Such visas, for foreign nationals who have performed services for the U.S. government in Iraq and Afghanistan, require COM concurrence before the applicant can file a petition with USCIS. The NVC collects the requisite documents from such applicants and, when complete, forwards the package to the U.S. embassies in Baghdad or Kabul for COM approval”
“Update on Serco’s Strategy Review including the Contract & Balance Sheet Reviews; capital structure and funding; latest trading and outlook
Date : 10 November 2014
THIS ANNOUNCEMENT AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS RESTRICTED AND IS NOT FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN, INTO OR FROM THE UNITED STATES, CANADA, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, SOUTH AFRICA OR ANY OTHER JURISDICTION IN WHICH THE SAME WOULD BE UNLAWFUL. PLEASE SEE THE IMPORTANT NOTICE AT THE END OF THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.
… Strategy Review: Serco’s future to be as an international B2G business. A successful, innovative and market-leading provider of services to Governments. Core sectors: Justice & Immigration, Defence, Transport, Citizen Services and Healthcare.
In the Americas Division, our work for the US Affordable [Obama] Care Act (ACA) has begun an expanded first option year. Other awards in the period included: career transition services for US soldiers; health outreach services for the US Naval Reserve; deployable medical systems solutions also for the Navy; and two contracts for fleet maintenance services for commercial clients. In total, the ACA and all other awards in the period are valued at over $550m. Meanwhile, our contract supporting the Department of State’s National Visa Center and Kentucky Consular Center (NVC/KCC) came to an end during the period, as did some Acquisition and Program Management support work for US intelligence agency customers. C4I2TSR services for the US Air Force and Naval installation task order work under the Sea Enterprise frameworks are also reducing. …
For further information please contact Serco:
Stuart Ford, Head of Investor Relations T +44 (0) 1256 386 227
Marcus De Ville, Head of Media Relations T +44 (0) 1256 386 226
Jonathan Glass, Brunswick T +44 (0) 207 404 5959
Analyst and institutional investor meeting…….
Download PDF [PDF, 387 KB] (Please note: this link will open the page in a new browser window)”
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