Research on the Determination Method of Aircraft Flight Safety Boundaries Based on Adaptive Control

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of the paper studied the problem of boundary determining of flights under icing conditions. The comments are listed below.

1. A more thorough review of existing literature is expected, especially on the studied problem.

2. All the abbreviations should be explained at first use. For example, what are AA, UA, etc. in Figure 1?

3. Figure 2 in the current form is not very clear to readers. It is suggested to be more illustrative and clear.

4.  What was the simulation platform?

5. More explanation of simulation device and setups are needed.

6. It is recommended to highlight the motivation of safety with recent perspectives in Real-time monitoring and control of industrial cyberphysical systems with integrated plant-wide monitoring and control framework.

7. It is suggested to indicate the meaning of the dashed blocks in Figure 5.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the consideration of my specific comments and advice. All of them were addressed and I feel content about them. The quality was improved. I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

In order to achieve intelligent boundary protection for aircraft under icing conditions, this paper investigates the method of determining and protecting flight safety boundaries under icing conditions. Overall, the article is interesting, however some questions remain. I accept its publication only after the authors revised the paper according to my suggestions. Some comments and suggestions are as follows:

1. It is recommended to add the algorithm table form to summarize the proposed method to increase readability.

2. Page 2 of the article needs to revise the task section of the study and re-describe the contribution of the article to highlight the research strengths.

3. The writing of the article needs further revision.

4. Many parameter explanations in the article seem to be unclear, such as formulas (8), (10), (13), etc.

5. The literature review of the article is not comprehensive enough. It is recommended that the authors analyze more articles on the analysis of aircraft safety and reliability in the literature review, such as Prediction of remaining useful life based on bidirectional gated recurrent unit with temporal self-attention mechanism.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Well edited by the authors. I think it can be accepted now.