Risk-Based UAV Corridor Capacity Analysis above a Populated Area

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The institution to which the second author belongs is not clear.
Perhaps the punctuation needs to be revised a little.
I like the work, no comments. What happens in the case of UAS fly away?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript ‘Risk-Based UAS Corridor Capacity Analysis above a Populated Area’ proposes a methodology to analyse the capacity of small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) corridors based on third-party risk on the ground caused by UAS operations. This manuscript falls within the aim and scope of this journal, and it can be accepted after minor revision. Comments below.

 GENERAL REMARKS

1.     The abstract should be rephrased. A good abstract should accurately describe the background, motivation, methods, results, conclusion of the manuscript, and significance in academia and practice in a clear and concise manner.

2.     The current introduction should better explain the significance of the work relative to other recently published works such as Weibel’s model. It is suggested to detail the main contributions of each reference and explain the differences between the present work and other published works.

3.     To validate the improvement of this research, this manuscript should build the referenced previous method (based on the state-of-the-art research before this manuscript) for the comparison of the improvement of this research.

4.     In the conclusion, it is suggested to summarize the significance in academia and practice to the readers.

 

SPECIFIC REMARKS

1.     The references relevant to Equation (2) should be added before the expression of Equation (2), which is mainly based on Weibel’s model. Weibel & Hansman (2005) developed a UAS ground impact model to build a strong correlation between the UAS mass and other factors. The Weibel’s model is a potential approach of evaluating the risk based on the analysis of penetration factors. Given a loss-of-control state has occurred, the Weibel’s model connects Target Level of Safety (TLS) and the mean time between the failures resulting in ground impacts (denoted by ) by several parameters: the critical area of exposure during a loss-of-control event (denoted by ), the exposed population density within the ground risk footprint (denoted by ), the probability of penetration (denoted by ), and the fatality probability of the impacted people under the condition that the UAS has collided with the people after a ground impact (denoted by ).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Regarding English, I received the English editing service of MDPI before submitting the paper, but after the revision, I received English correction again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In general, the work is interesting and I would recommend its publication after minor corrections.

1. I would suggest clarifying the terminology used. Be so kindly explain the difference and/or correlation of conceptions of  "unmanned aircraft system" (UAS), "unmanned aerial vehicle" (UAV), and "aircraft".

2. Could you explain the definition of risk (1)? Typically the risk is defined as the interdependence hazard function (hazard) and this hazard measuring.

3. Could you explain the definition of the probability density (21)?

4. Could you consider or recommend the one of possible applications of your method? I suppose these reviews can be useful:

 - Santoso, F.; Garratt, M.A.; Anavatti, S.G. State-of-the-art intelligent flight control systems in unmanned aerial vehicles. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2017, 15, 613–627.

 - Mukhamediev, R.I.; Symagulov, A.; et al. Review of Some Applications of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Technology in the Resource-Rich Country. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10171.

 - Shakhatreh, H.; Sawalmeh, A.H.; Al-Fuqaha, A.; Dou, Z.; Almaita, E.; Khalil, I.; Othman, N.S.; Khreishah, A.; Guizani, M. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs): A survey on civil applications and key research challenges. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 48572–48634.

5. Could you introduce the novelty of your result in the conclusion?

6. There are comparisons of your result with others?

7. You obtained some recommendations for the capacity of the corridor with the total ground risk. Could you comment on them? In which condition it is well, when it is problematic, etc?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf