Risk Quantification and Visualization Method for Loss-of-Control Scenarios in Flight

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The featured article suggests an attractive topic with an interesting approach. The effort made is evident. Overall, I rate the article as very good, logically processed with illustrative outputs, and mathematically well-supported. Nevertheless, I have two essential comments:

1.       In this case, isn't the severity the same as the level of risk? (“We specified the value of the risk spectrum that represented the risk level of the flight parameter at time t, for the severity associated with the five basic risk colours “  - line 355,356.)   Risk-related flight parameters are given substantial attention, but there is an insufficient description for assessing the severity and level of risk. Expanding the description and indicating the difference between severity and risk level is necessary. And describe the risk - risk spectrum is a description used to describe the severity.

2.       Combining risk quantitative assessment and visual deduction (as stated in l. 568)   - It is necessary to justify the usage of combining risk quantitative assessment and visual deduction (as stated in l. 568).  The such combined application must be confirmed by citations of other studies either in the introduction or in Material and Methods. It seems to be a qualitative method (Severity) with a quantitative method combined, and visualization is used to display the resulting level.

I have other minor comments :

-          The title of the article should be modified, as well as the abstract.   With the current title and abstract, I  expect the identification of risks. The article repeatedly points to the fact that only certain factors are selected. Attention is more focused on demonstrating the method, and I recommend focusing on that in the title and abstract.

-          The goals of the article in the abstract and introduction (l.102 - 105) are obviously different. They should be united.

-          Research Manuscript Sections do not comply with journal requirements. Although they are described in the article, the Materials and Methods and Results Sections are missing. Sections need to be renamed.

-          Section 3.1. , Figure 5 - unclear as the determination or scale for severity is not clearly described. The classic description for severities ( Catastrophic, Dangerous... ) is used to describe the spectrum of risk.

The article is interesting, but the terminology needs to be corrected and the article needs to be amended to match the topic of risk assessment.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents an interesting study in the field of air transport safety, specifically in the field of general aviation accident investigation. The authors combine quantitative risk assessment and visual deduction of loss of control caused by failure factors. According to the authors' assessment, this is an effective analysis of risk development in the loss of control events. I consider the issue of the given work to be current, as streamlining the methods of evaluating failure factors in aviation accidents helps to solve and prevent them.
The article is clearly described and contains all the required parts. The comprehensibility of the article is good. In the first part, the theoretical review is presented, even though the search for research in the given area is relatively brief - in my opinion, it would be appropriate to expand it. The main part of the article is clear, the formulas contain explanations in the text. Some parts are not quite properly placed, for example, Table 1 should be placed only after line no. 185 for a better connection of the table content with the text. The main part also lacks an explanation based on which the mentioned 25 LOC scenarios were defined. Chapter 4 is entitled Results and Discussion, but from the point of view of content, the discussion part is missing. In terms of content, chapter 5 Conclusion comes close to the discussion. I recommend either calling Chapter 5 Conclusion and Discussion and expanding the discussion part as it is quite brief or dividing these two parts into two chapters. As part of the discussion, it would be appropriate to mention why the mentioned models were not applied to real data, for example, extracted from the database of air accidents for a certain period to demonstrate the application of the proposed solutions.

After correcting the mentioned shortcomings, I recommend the article for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript proposes an interesting approach aimed at evaluating flight risk analysis by combining quantitative risk assessment with visual deduction.

The manuscript is well-written and organized. However, it also presents some criticalities that need to be addressed before considering it for publication.

In particular, the proposed research approach needs to be clarified by providing a scheme of its application procedure: e.g. a flow chart or a table where the different steps are summarized and the input/output of each step is indicated. This can help the reader better understand the whole procedure.

Another criticality is represented by the discussion of results, which is quite poor: both methodical and practical implications need to be discussed in detail.

In addition, some minor concerns are related to:

·         The referencing style, e.g. in line 204, page 5;

·         The quality of some figures: e.g. Figure 9.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors have satisfactorily improved the quality of the manuscript. hence, in this reviewer's opinion it can be considered for publication.