Quantifying Specific Operation Airborne Collision Risk through Monte Carlo Simulation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Please see the attachment.

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for a very good paper. The topic is relevant. The method is appropriate. The results are reasonable.

1) Are non-transponding aircraft likely to have the same trajectories as transponding aircraft?

2) (For those of us not familiar with UK airspace,) please provide a quantitative measure of "busy airspace" in south England- how many GA per day on average? or how many GA airports?

3) Section 3.2: Please clarify the phrase "The traffic agents are static and only the ownship(s) 217 are moved." Can authors explain this. Not sure what this means.

4) Recommend add some commentary on the size of data set for analysis relative to the Target Level of Safety. 

5) Section 4. (For US audience,) why 1000' ft AGL and not 400' are required in US.

6) Section 4. Medical transport is 1000' but surveillance is only up to 500'. This is confusing. Please clarify.

7) Did the authors consider "rare-event" simulation methods such as Importance Sampling. May be good to mention this in future work.

8) Did the authors consider Confidence Bounds on the results? Please explain.

9) Did the authors consider a "sensitivity analysis" What factors impact the safety the most/the least.

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the comments.