Aviation experts have dismissed fears that offshore helicopters are inherently unsafe despite occupants facing a 10 times higher death rate than commercial air passengers.
Safety rates over the North Sea were "just as good" as in other comparable areas internationally, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) told MPs.
Over the past four years there have been five major offshore crashes - all involving Super Puma helicopters - prompting the CAA to issue a safety review.
Figures it published last month showed the chance of death on offshore helicopters was 10 times the rate of that for commercial jet aeroplanes.
Asked if that meant helicopter flights were "inherently unsafe", Mark Swan, director of the CAA safety, airspace and regulation group, told the Commons Transport select committee: "No, it doesn't mean that the helicopters are inherently unsafe.
"I can assure this committee if they were they wouldn't be flying."
Last August, a Super Puma L2 carrying oil rig workers ditched in the North Sea. Four people died and 14 survived. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) found no evidence of any technical failure in this case.
A Super Puma EC225 helicopter plunged into the water off the Aberdeenshire coast claiming 16 lives in April 2009. A fatal accident inquiry held only last week concluded that the accident could have been prevented.
The committee was told there were different variants of helicopters that came under the name Super Puma.
Keith Conradi, chief of inspectors at the AAIB, said: "If you look globally I don't know of any information which suggests actually that the EC225 or any of the Super Pumas are any more likely to have an accident than any other type."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article