Occupational Risk Assessment for Flight Schools: A 3,4-Quasirung Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making-Based Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is in several ways missleading. The title, "occupational risk assessment for aviation industry", is not adressed in the article. Maybe the title could be "occupational risk assessment for flight schools". However, there is already a standart protocol to follow, which the authors ignore. There is no reference to it.
The authors write about "occupational risk assessment" for 99% of the article. Several risks, which cannot be ignored from the flight school point of view, are not included in the article. A flight school could not utilise this procedure described in the manuscript.
There are two "figure 1". There are several formating errors, such as font changes.
There are 11 self-citations by the first author. Please reduce them to a reasonable ratio.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
- In the manuscript, the authors presented a new occupational risk assessment approach based on 3,4-quasirung fuzzy MCDM that was implemented in a flight school risk prioritization process. The paper is generally clearly written and the proposed approach has some potential to be useful in risk assessment.
- Section 3.1 can be difficult for readers not familiar with fuzzy approach. The authors do a good job presenting the basic mathematical concepts, but more explanatory examples should be included for better readability.
- Some previous researchers used different criteria of expert opinion and are not acknowledged and discussed within the paper. Authors need to update the reference list (most recent ones) and include the relevant research conducted in this direction: Examples are:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2018.10.003 - There is no reference in the text to table 8. Please add.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors improved the manuscript in comparison to the first version. However, I believe that few final issues should be addressed, as reported in the following.
Abstract - Row 32: What do the authors mean by “occupational safety” and “human safety”? What are the differences between them?
Keywords: The keywords are already part of the title. I suggest proposing other keywords.
Introduction
Rows 38-47: Support references are needed.
Rows 79-99: The part dedicated to the aviation industry is completely unlinked to the previous and subsequent paragraphs.
Rows 105-116: This bullet point contains some parts that should be moved to a method section.
Method implementation and results
Row 437: Please revise the sentence “the most important hazards are the risks related to …”. The hazards are not risks.
Conclusion: As already highlighted in the first round of the paper review, I suggest the authors to introduce a section dedicated to the discussion of the results, strengths and limitations of their approach, and the main contributions in comparison to the available approaches and techniques. Some of these aspects are currently reported in the Conclusion section, but I believe that they should be moved in a proper manuscript section and deeply described.
References: Reference [1] should be completed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript improved. However, I don't think that the manuscript reaches the value to be applied by any flight school. The authors have an idea about multi-criteria decision making but have little idea about flight schools. The manuscript is written in a way that neither flight schools nor legislative offices can make use of the work.
There are 8 self-citations by the first author.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did not carry out some requested revisions, although they declare that they performed them. There are still some grammatical errors that should be corrected.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
We have done our best to revise the paper. Once again, we gone through the manuscript and revised it in terms of grammar. Thank you for your helpful comments.
Best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
I don't think that the manuscript reaches the value to be applied by any flight school. The authors have an idea about multi-criteria decision making but have little idea about flight schools. The manuscript is written in a way that neither flight schools nor legislative offices can make use of the work.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer;
We have done our best to revise the paper. Once again, we gone through the manuscript and added arguments that will support the motivation on OHS risk assessmen of flight schools. Also, we have made revisions regarding grammar.
Thank you for your helpful comments.
Best regards.
