Research on Cross-Correlation, Co-Integration, and Causality Relationship between Civil Aviation Incident and Airline Capacity in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper on statistical analysis of the relationship between aviation incidents and airline capacity. The analysis is sound and clear with detailed description and explanation. I recommend its publication after the authors considered my floowing points to improve its presentation.

In the literature review section, the main conclusions/findings need to be more clearly stated, i.e. whether correction is positive or nagative. Some of the statements are rather vague. For example, Line 121, .".. GDP contibuted to change in ... road trafic fatalities". How? A number of other examples in this section. Check through. Line 103-104 is unclear. "a little", "little", or "less" reduction?

The authors used the flight hours for the analysis of the incident contributors. What will be changed if flight frequencies, i.e. take offs and landings were used as capacity for this study? I would think some of the incident factor may more closely correlated to flight frequencies than that for flight hours. Some discussion along this line would be helpful to the readers (as air passengers).

The authors need the check more carefully about the accuracy of the paper. While reading the discussion of Fig.1, I couldn't find inc i_en and concluded it's printed as inci_wt. This should not happen in a journal paper, in particular relating to aviation safety. Check through.

Obviously, Fig.1 shows that the dominant contributor to the incidents is from inci_en, both increased exponentially during the period od data UNTIL about 2017. I don't seem to see any explanation of the sudden change at this point of time for the suddent drop. Some explanation is due to this.

In conclusion, Lines 491-492, it is difficult to digest this point. Do you mean the higher the flight hours, the less the incidents caused by the crews, etc. ? This needs to be presented with more convicing arguement/data.

 

 

 

Author Response

Considering your suggestion, we have carefully revised our manuscript. Special thanks to you for your professional comments. The detailed response to the comments and revised manuscript, pleased see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

English language should be carefully checked and carefully check paper for language typos.

Introduction Section 
Some sentences need a reference. Please add references, especially to the sentences used as arguments in the introduction.

Data and Method - Results -Discussion
Your decimal and thousandth representations in your tables need revision. E.g: Table 3, Table 6 (line 398) and so on. 

The representation of the axes of your Figures must be compatible. There are differences in the notation and markings on some axes.

Suggestion:  Marking the collective figures as (a)( b) (c )will provide convenience for the reader.

The conclusion section is missing some perspectives related to future research work.

Author Response

Considering your kind suggestion, we have carefully revised our manuscript. Special thanks to you for your helpful comments. The detailed response to the comments and revised manuscript, pleased see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx