Ok...may be true...but for legal/liability reasons what else would AW say at this point? Perhaps a bit early yet to take it as gospel. Unbiased investigation (if that's possible) would lend some validity to this statement.
I am assuming that AW is eluding back to the bird strike theory (because what else could it be in that operating location). Can a bird really cause that much to happen right after takeoff and not even at cruise yet? Who knows...maybe it can...
The pics in the HK Standard show a straight on shot of the tail...not even a TR drive-shaft there that I can see.
(I tried to upload it but I must be technologically bankrupt as it wouldn't work.)