Fatal Consequences of Safety Non-Compliance in Non-Commercial Ultralight Aviation: A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript by Glowinski and Majdanik describes, in a case report, a fatal accident (and its causes) involving an ultralight aircraft in Poland. The aircraft had not undergone mandatory inspections and the pilot was not certificated for ultralight aircraft in Poland (the country of the accident). The paper is overall well-written and some (but not all) of the conclusions supported by the case presented. Nevertheless I have some concerns which, if addressed, would improve the manuscript.
MAJOR CONCERNS.
1) I only have one major issue with the manuscript. As surmised, the ultimate cause was the disregard by the accident pilot for the aviation regulations –specifically, in not registering the ultralight and, more importantly, non-adherence with mandatory inspections. The latter likely resulted in a failure of the seatbelt and the pilot’s ejection from the aircraft. However, disregard for civil aviation regulations in general aviation is certainly not new as mentioned by the authors on line 79 and elsewhere (e.g. “A comparison of general aviation accidents involving airline pilots and instrument-rated private pilots published in J. Safety Research in 2020). So my question is why would it be any different for ultralight aircraft? Put another way, what is novel about the current findings? One way to address the lack of novelty might be by highlighting how safety of ultralights differs from general aviation (involving aircraft of 5,700 kg) e.g. is it worse or is disregard for the regulations more prevalent?
MINOR CONCERNS.
1) The term “tourist” used throughout the manuscript is inappropriate as it has the connotations of a commercial service i.e. flying passengers for compensation e.g. for aerial tours. Please replace this word e.g. “private” or “non-commercial” or “non-revenue”.
2) Introduction -line 39: the authors indicate the aircraft/helicopter fleet is expected to reach 1,769 units in 2021. In addition to being outdated (we’re now in 2024) this means little unless as expressed as a percentage (or fractional) increase relative to an earlier reference period.
3) Paragraph 2 on page 2 (i.e. lines 49-49) seem irrelevant to the certification of pilots flying ultralights and should be deleted.
4) The description of SHERPA for improving flight safety should be moved to the Discussion section.
5) Discussing safety of airline in the Introduction (line 100) has little bearing on the paper and should be deleted.
6) Line 201. The authors cite “inadequate training” as causal for the accident. If the pilot was certificated to fly ultralights in Czechoslovakia I would guess that departure stalls (and recovery) were practiced. Unless the authors can prove otherwise, this statement should be removed.
7) Line 202. I do not see how “lack of situational awareness” was causal for the mishap. This phrase is used to infer a situation as to the pilot not knowing where he/she was in a certain point in space. Clearly, in this instance, the pilot was aware that he/she had just taken off.
8) Line 202. Again, I do not see how “environmental factors” played a role in this accident based on the crosswind (4-5 m/s equivalent to 10 kts) even with pilots familiar with the departure runway citing “interfere(ence) with laminar flow.” All in all the ambient conditions seem benign even for an ultralight.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your invaluable comments and suggestions regarding my manuscript. Your feedback has greatly contributed to improving its overall quality.
All responses to your comments and the corresponding revisions have been included in the attached file.
Thank you once again for your time and effort.
Yours Sincerely
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article deals with Fatal Consequences of Safety Non-Compliance in Tourist Ultralight Aviation, The topic of the article can be considered as actual, the article is written in a form of a case study.
The scientific soundness of the article is low according to the fact that the article seems to be as the result of formal investigation of the accident including the results of the post-mortem report - cannot be considered as a research in the field of aviation. To conduct the research, the authors should analyze the fatal consequences of safety non-compliance in tourist ultralight aviation for more flights in order to draw relevant conclusions.
Other findings and recommendations:
- the abstract should be written as a continuous text, without division into parts,
- highlights should be part of the introduction,
- lack of references, the authors should expand the literature review,
- recommendations in the conclusion part are of a general nature,
- the conclusion lacks motivation/information on further study in the field.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your invaluable comments and suggestions regarding my manuscript. Your feedback has greatly contributed to improving its overall quality.
All responses to your comments and the corresponding revisions have been included in the attached file.
Thank you once again for your time and effort.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript: Fatal Consequences of Safety Non-Compliance in Tourist Ultralight Aviation: A Case Study
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review the above manuscript.
The manuscript studies a particular fatal accident to identify the casual factors contributing to the accident. However, these factors are common in most civil aviation accidents such as non-compliance to safety regulations and pilot errors, which are nothing new to most readers.
The manuscript is aiming for a scientific journal, but some part of it reads like an investigation report (eg Figure 1). Even an investigation report will not include pictures like Figure 2.
I don’t think the manuscript has enough scientific values to publish.
Below are some specific comments:
Section 1 introduced the pilot licencing requirements for PPL(A) and UACP. However, it does not mention anything about requirements for overseas pilots such as conversion, and the pilot involved in the fatal accident was an overseas pilot.
In addition, this section or other sections of the manuscript has not mentioned anything that the aviation safety regulator does to monitor/surveillance/audit/enforce the relevant aviation safety regulations are complied with by aviation users.
Line 38-39: "In Poland, for instance, the private aircraft and helicopter fleet is expected to reach 1,769 units by 2021." It is 2024, so 2021 figure should be certain, not "expected". If these aircraft are registered, a relevant government agent should have the exact number at a particular time.
Line 37-39: "Despite the continued high cost associated with aircraft usage, an increasing number of individuals are obtaining pilot certificates. In Poland, for instance, the private aircraft and helicopter fleet is expected to reach 1,769 units by 2021." The 1st sentence refers to the number of pilots, however, the 2nd sentence means to provide an example to the 1st sentence, but it refers to the number of aircraft in Poland. Furthermore, it says "This growing trend caters ...", but it only gives one number (ie 1,769) with nothing indicating any "growing".
Line 45: “PLN 150,000”. Since it is aiming for an international journal/report, it is better to convert the amount to an international common currency such as Euro or USD.
Line 51: add (MTOW) after "maximum take-off weight" since it is the 1st time.
Line 65: delete '(Maximum Take-Off Mass)' if it has been given in Line 51.
Line 100-102: "Interestingly, studies indicate that airline pilots over the age of 60 do not exhibit an increased risk of accidents [17]. Real-world aviation experience supports the notion that older pilots are just as safe as their younger counterparts [18]." These two sentences are not relevant to the ultralight accident, so may be deleted.
Line 115: add 'distance' after "very short take-off".
Figure 2: It is not necessary to include post-mortem pictures, if necessary, only the results.
Line 205: "Although she ..."; Line 206: "she did not obtain ..."; Line 230: "…his head…". It confuses to any reader about the gender of the victim. Furthermore, the paper has provided too much private information about the victim including “from Czech Republic” (Line 206). It will most likely identify the victim, together with those bloody pictures in Figure 2, which will certainly impact the victim’s family and friends.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSee above
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your invaluable comments and suggestions regarding my manuscript. Your feedback has greatly contributed to improving its overall quality.
All responses to your comments and the corresponding revisions have been included in the attached file.
Thank you once again for your time and effort.
Yours Sincerely
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The references numbered 17, 18, and 19 are not related to the article's topic.
- If this is meant to be a scientific article, I find the objectives and the scientific methods used to address them missing.
- If the authors' ambition was to enrich the professional community with new insights, the provided conclusions are too general and already well-known to the professional community.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your invaluable comments and suggestions regarding my manuscript. Your feedback has greatly contributed to improving its overall quality.
All responses to your comments and the corresponding revisions have been included in the attached file.
Thank you once again for your time and effort.
Yours Sincerely
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsmy concerns have been addressed
Author Response
Dear Associate Editor and Reviewer,
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the associate editor for their effort in reviewing the manuscript and for their valuable and constructive comments and fruitful observations, which helped in improving the quality of the manuscript to a publishable standard.
Thank you once again for your constructive feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirst of all, I would like to thank you for including all of the recommended changes to your article and your response to all of them.
Despite the additional modifications, I think that the scientific soundness of the article is poor and you should make additional research in the field in the form of research of fatal consequences accidents in order to draw a relevant conclusion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your continued feedback and for taking the time to review my article. I appreciate your thoughtful comments and understand your concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the study. I have provided detailed, step-by-step explanations in the attached file to address your comments comprehensively.
I sincerely hope that the current version of the manuscript meets the expectations of You and Safety journal. Moreover I think, that it will be well-received by the readership, ultimately leading to high citation rates.
Thank you once again for your guidance and support throughout this process.
Prof. Sebastian Glowinski
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs I have already stated in my first review report, this manuscript is an investigation report (like an investigation report by NTSB or ATSB) rather than a scientific work for the Journal of Safety. It identifies the causal factors of a particular fatal accident. However, those factors identified are common and have been well studied in the literature. Furthermore, if you want to evidence common contribution factors, you may have to use statistics with a large sample size. For example, you may show pilot errors were contributing to 60% of accidents. That is, one case study identifies common contribution factors is less scientifically significant.
On the other hand, if you want to identify an exception/gap/loophole/drawback in some aspect, for example, safety regulations, one case study may be enough. Unfortunately, it is not the case for this manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSee above
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your continued feedback and for taking the time to review my article. I appreciate your thoughtful comments and understand your concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the study. I have provided detailed, step-by-step explanations in the attached file to address your comments comprehensively.
I sincerely hope that the current version of the manuscript meets the expectations of You and Safety journal. Moreover I think, that it will be well-received by the readership, ultimately leading to high citation rates.
Thank you once again for your guidance and support throughout this process.
Prof. Sebastian Glowinski
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo comments
Author Response
Dear Associate Editor and Reviewer,
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the associate editor for their effort in reviewing the manuscript and for their valuable and constructive comments and fruitful observations, which helped in improving the quality of the manuscript to a publishable standard.
Thank you once again for your constructive feedback.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors!
Thank you for your answer as well as your time while making changes according to all recommendations
YAccept the article in the revised/present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your kind words and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful feedback and guidance throughout the revision process. We are delighted to hear that the article is now accepted in its revised form.
Best regards,
Prof. Sebastian Glowinski
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI will re-consider the manuscript if the authors can add a discussion section to discuss the relevant safety regulations and making suggestions to enhance them in light of the case study.
However, I strongly suggest removing Figure 2 (postmortem photos) in the revision as it invades the victim’s privacy, which could exacerbate the trauma of victim’s family and friends, if the identity of the victim has been revealed.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagen/a
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your constructive feedback and for highlighting the need for a more comprehensive discussion on safety regulations. The changes were made and are describe in manuscript (with removing the figure). Thank you again for your valuable insights. I hope, that these additions meet your expectations. Yours Sincerely prof. Sebastian GlowinskiAuthor Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 4
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank authors for this revision, particularly, the Discussion Section.
My final comments/suggestions are mostly editorial in order to enhance the quality of the manuscript.
This manuscript has used both “take-off” and “takeoff” many times. I suggest using only one version of them but not both in the same manuscript.
Line 63-64: “Four hours shall be related to navigational flight, including a navigational flight.” – Is “including a navigational flight” redundant?
Line 122-124: “A study published in the Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering analyzed ultralight aircraft accidents in the United States from 2009 to 2013. The study found that pilot error was involved in 69% of the accidents analyzed.” – These 2 sentences can be shortened/simplified with details of the journal can be moved to a reference.
Line 124-127: “For example, research published in the Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance journal reviewed ultralight accidents in Australia over a 10-year period and found that 75% of these accidents were due to pilot error.” – Same as above, that is, simplify the sentence and use a reference.
Line 127-129: “Another study, focusing on ultralight aviation in Europe, published in the Safety Science journal, highlighted that pilot error was responsible for approximately 65% of the accidents [25-26].” – again, the journal detail should be moved to the reference. In addition, references [25] and [26] appear to be difference from the “Safety Science journal” given in the sentence.
Line 170-171: “owned by a member of the association” – which association?
Line 171: “The aircraft was not officially registered” – was it had never been registered or it was not registered when the accident happened?
Line 184-186: “As a result of this collision, the front part of the keel tube (located in front of the pilot's seat and serving as a primary structural element of the fuselage, as shown in (Fig. 1a,b) broke.” – currently, the parentheses are not properly paired, so suggest to remove the parenthesis just before “Fig”, so the sentence will be: “ … keel tube (located … in Fig. 1a,b) broke.”
Line 191: “… his seatbelt …” – suggest replacing “his” with something like “pilot’s” to mask the gender of the victim.
Before Line 204: Fig 1 labelling (a) and (b) are wrongly shown twice, which should be (c) and (d).
Line 227: Should “Le^Fort” be “Le Fort”?
Line 242: “… his torso.” – suggest replacing “his” with something like “pilot’s” to mask the gender of the victim.
Line 248: “Polish Civil Aviation Authority” – replaced by “Polish Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)”
Line 261: “incident” – suggest replacing it with “accident”.
Line 269: “Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)” – replaced by “CAA”, if the spelling of CAA has already been given in Line 248.
Line 280-281: “… educating both pilots and the general public …” – maybe adding “aircraft owners” as they are also the stakeholders.
Line 288-289: “aircraft's use of components” – it may be simplified by “aircraft components”.
Line 283-287: Suggest moving this paragraph earlier, maybe after Line 266. This paragraph discusses a fault safety equipment revealed through this accident, which may be identified through a proper pre-flight inspection (ie refers to Line 274). In addition, you may suggest CAA to introduce relevant safety regulations to inspect and replace this safety equipment if necessary, as a part of continuous airworthiness requirements for ultralight aircraft, if this has not yet been explicitly stated in Lines 273 to 287.
Line 354: remove “the” before 02 August.
Line 360-361: The hyperlink is not working.
Line 406:408: I could not find the citations to References [27] and [28] within the manuscript. They start with “art” seems strange to me; however, I could not read in Polish so will not judge it.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSee above.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer and the associate editor for their effort in reviewing the manuscript and for their valuable and constructive comments and fruitful observations, which helped in improving the quality of the manuscript to a publishable standard.The responses to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions are included in the file below. Thank you again Yours Sincerely Prof. Sebastian GlowinskiAuthor Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 5
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate that authors made the 5th revision promptly within few hours.
Firstly, I apologise a typo made during my last review report. In particular, I meant to suggest moving the last paragraph of the Discussion Section earlier because it discussed about the seatbelt failure of the case study. That is, I meant to write “Line 288-296” (v4), but accidently wrote “Line 283-287”. As a result, the second last paragraph (Line 283-287 of v4) was moved forward which was not necessary.
Hence, I suggest the following arrangements as a remedy:
Line 263-267: “In light of the findings … in this sector”. This paragraph was copied from the 2nd last paragraph of this Discussion section (ie Lines 294-298) because of my typo in the last review report, so please delete it as we don’t need the same paragraph twice.
Line 299-307: As this paragraph discusses about the seatbelt failure of the case study, suggest moving it earlier to just after Line 263.
Line 278-283: I believe this paragraph was a part of last revision (v4) and it now has been revised/updated in Lines 268-277, so Line 278-283 can be deleted.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you again for your suggestion to the Discussion section. I have made the changes per your recommendations and moved the sections as requested. I hope I have executed the adjustments correctly and that they align with your expectations.
Please let me know if there are any further modifications needed.
Yours Sincerely
Prof. Sebastian Glowinski
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 6
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI no more comments and the manuscript does not require any more changes.
