Proposal of Risk Identification Methodology Using the Prompt List on the Example of an Air Carrier

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is of interest to specialists in this field. It is recommended to apply also to other modes of transport.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your opinion. In the future, we are planning further expansions of the prompt list and application in additional areas and modes of transportation.

Regards, 

Blišťanová, Tirpáková, Galanda

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, the idea of the paper is good. Authors try to improve the risk assessment process for the air carriers companies. The paper focuses mainly on safety but also other types of risks. The main issue is the understanding of aviation safety. In this, the hazard identification and risk assessment process leads to overall safety management. On the other hand, authors use the words "risk identification", which are not correct, as risk is an assessed consequence of a hazard. Therefore, the nomenclature is completely wrong from the aviation point of view. In addition, the basic document from International Civil Aviation Organization focused on Safety Management System is not referenced in the article. Moreover, state-of-the-art methods for safety management are missing in the literature review. FRAM and STAMP are systemic, therefore able to identify even hazards outside safety.

Specific comments:

- improve the use of words threat, risk and the idea behind them

- extend the literature review part and add new methods

- incorporate new methods into your research and improve results

- there is no need to describe the same text, which is graphically shown on Figure 2, on lines 175-184 

- delete all explanations and discussion from the chapter results

- the role of using PESTE and SWOT is not clear in the way to results - improve or delete

- in Figure 6, there is just one (red) process shown, the others (blue and green are just one box without any steps

- on row 355 are (Figure7Figure6)

- in the results chapter the list of risks is not shown, and the results are not complete. Add a table of the list of risks to the appendix

- on row 463, delete "following", reference os to table 4, which is correct and enough

- in figure 9 is the first word not in English

- authors shall add to the article, how anybody can answer Yes to the final question in the flow chart (figure 9)

- in the discussion, "list of threats" and "identify risks" are used; improve the nomenclature 

- two limitations described in the discussion are quite serious. Please add, what new the article brings

- In line 522, the sentence is not understandable "...would improve the work of minimum safety managers..."

- In line 537, the sentence is not understandable "...be directly separated from the needs of safety management systems following Annex 19."

Author Response

Dear Review,

Thank you for your review and feedback. Please, see the attachment for point-by-point response. 

Sincerely,

Blišťanová, Tirpáková, Galanda

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

§  Seems mixing between "Hazard" and "Risk", normally in aviation we used to identify the hazard, and manage the risk (e.g. Figure 1,...,etc).

§  Need to review the typo, e.g. Line 113 (one word),

§  Figure 1, contains two separate figures, is there any link between them?, more clarification is needed,

§  Within the "Literature Review", very seldom he provides references, more comprehensive "Literature Review" is needed,

§  What is the source for Figure 2? or is it the author/s contribution?

§  What is the source of the flow chart in Figure 9? seems he NEVER used the aviation references! again no clear boundaries between risk and hazard.

§  Very obvious and clear, that this is not the way how we used to do risk assessment/management in aviation industry.

§  There is no reference for the Risk matrix used in the assessment and evaluation process!!

§  Many definitions, and techniques are included in the article, unfortunately without citation.

§  At last but not least, what is the contribution of the research?

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your review and feedback. Please, see the attachment for point-by-point response.

Regards,

Blišťanová, Tirpáková, Galanda

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is improved, unfortunately, the main issue is still uncorrected. From the aviation point of view, safety, hazard, and risk are defined words. Using ISO 31000 is fine, but, why do authors try to correct the nomenclature, which works? Nobody will use their method if this contradicts the current state-of-the-art.

Moreover, this method is not validated. (which is related to not using current methods, which can improve the results above the lists)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The idea of ​​the article comes from creating an auxiliary list of risks (prompt list) to help identify risks. For a long time, we struggled with the terminology used in individual areas of safety, whether environmental, health and safety, information, supply chain, economic, or operational. Each has its own specifics and already used terminology.

Within one company, there are different risk areas, so the use of uniform terminology is essential for understanding each other. There is also inconsistency in the ISO standards themselves. While ISO 9000, 31000 and 27005 use risk identification, ISO 45001 uses hazard identification, and ISO 14 0001 aspects and impacts identification.

The economic, operational, informational, environmental, etc. also occur in aviation and the main areas are governed by two documents, namely:

• Annex 19, where the term hazard identification is used and
• Annex 17 uses the term risk/hazard identification.

And that's it two areas of safety, both safety and security; in both cases, we also have risks from the areas of information security, which is used in the sense of ISO 27005 risk identification.

After a lengthy study, we had to choose several standards, regulations and professional literature logically. Used conceptual apparatus corresponds to intentions and creation of a comprehensive, unified auxiliary prompt list, which, if shared between companies, could help increase aviation safety of transport.

Even though a further study of the issue based on your initiative, we concluded that it is most appropriate not to change the conceptual apparatus used in the article.

We would like to emphasize that we are aware that the proposed method is not verified in practice, but this is precisely how opportunity is created for further research.

We greatly appreciate every stimulus that moves us forward, but a change of concept in the apparatus would not correspond to the intentions.

Regards,

Blišťanová, Tirpáková, Galanda. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the amendments, 

All the best.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive response. 

Regards,

Blišťanová, Tirpáková, Galanda

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper looks fine.