Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to improve aviation safety management by integrating Safety-I and Safety-II methodologies. It analyzes three typical failure cases using the HEAR framework and introduces a newly defined concept of “flight crew’s resilient behavior” using the LPAC and PAM models. The study’s objective is to transform failure responses into resilient successes and shift the paradigm from failure prevention to success expansion. The research approach is insightful, and the topic focuses on the core issues of aviation safety management. However, the current version still needs some explanation and modification, as follows.

1. The manuscript lacks a critical comparison with existing studies. The authors should conduct a more thorough literature review and clearly position their contribution in relation to prior research.
2. The background descriptions of the HEAR framework, LPAC model, and PAM framework are overly lengthy. These sections could be condensed to improve focus and readability.
3. The study is based on only three cases. This narrow scope limits the generalizability of the findings. The authors are advised to either expand the sample size or explicitly acknowledge the limitations in scope and applicability.
4. The study relies mainly on frequency counts without deeper modeling of causal pathways. The inclusion of advanced analytical methods is recommended to enhance the rigor of the findings.
5. Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and Figures 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 lack clarity. The authors should revise these visuals to ensure better readability.
6. The English writing of the paper should be corrected by a native speaker

I recommend accepting this manuscript after major revisions.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript lacks a critical comparison with existing studies. The authors should conduct a more thorough literature review and clearly position their contribution in relation to prior research.

Response 1: We acknowledge this important concern and have enhanced our positioning of the research contribution. While we maintained our existing literature base, we have significantly improved how we position our work within the current knowledge landscape [Sections 1.1, 1.2, 2.2]. Specifically, we have clarified that our research addresses the previously unexplored implementation gap between SMS theoretical frameworks (which contain Safety-II elements) and actual organizational practice (which remains predominantly Safety-I reactive). This positioning differentiates our work from previous studies that focus on either Safety-I or Safety-II approaches separately, rather than developing practical tools for their simultaneous implementation in aviation safety management.

Comment 2: The background descriptions of the HEAR framework, LPAC model, and PAM framework are overly lengthy. These sections could be condensed to improve focus and readability.

Response 2: We have streamlined the theoretical framework sections while maintaining essential content for reader understanding [Sections 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4]. The descriptions of HEAR, LPAC, and PAM frameworks have been condensed and better integrated to focus on their specific roles in our integrated implementation approach rather than providing extensive background details. This revision improves the manuscript's focus on our primary contribution—the systematic integration of these frameworks for practical aviation safety implementation.

Comment 3: The study is based on only three cases. This narrow scope limits the generalizability of the findings. The authors are advised to either expand the sample size or explicitly acknowledge the limitations in scope and applicability.

Response 3: We have repositioned our study as framework development with proof-of-concept validation rather than seeking statistical generalization [Sections 1.2, 1.3, 6.3]. We have added explicit acknowledgment of scope limitations throughout the manuscript, particularly in Section 6.3, and clearly positioned our three cases as strategically selected to represent technical (FMS operations), environmental (turbulence response), and managerial (energy management) aspects of aviation operations. The research contribution lies in developing and demonstrating the integrated implementation methodology, with broader validation across diverse aviation sectors identified as future research directions.

Comment 4: The study relies mainly on frequency counts without deeper modeling of causal pathways. The inclusion of advanced analytical methods is recommended to enhance the rigor of the findings.

Response 4: While we maintained our core analytical approach, we have enhanced the presentation of our systematic causal analysis through Why-Because Tree methodology [Figures 1, 3, 5 and Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3], which was already present in our original framework but may not have been sufficiently emphasized. The hierarchical progression from surface errors to organizational root causes through HEAR framework provides systematic causal pathway modeling, complemented by the before/after comparative analysis [Section 5.2, Table 9, Figure 8] demonstrating the reduction from 54 to 19 systematically related factors. This approach aligns with our framework development objectives while acknowledging that more advanced quantitative modeling would be valuable in future empirical validation studies.

Comment 5: Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and Figures 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 lack clarity. The authors should revise these visuals to ensure better readability.

Response 5: We have addressed the visual clarity concerns through targeted improvements. For Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and Figures 1, 3, 5 [Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3], we have enhanced the accompanying text descriptions to provide clearer explanations and context for better reader comprehension. For Figures 8, 9, 10 [Section 5.2.2], we have improved readability by reorganizing the layout from horizontal (side-by-side) arrangement to vertical (top-bottom) arrangement, which enhances comparison effectiveness and visual clarity. These modifications improve the overall presentation of our analytical results while maintaining the integrity of the data and findings.

Comment 6: The English writing of the paper should be corrected by a native speaker.

Response 6: We have conducted comprehensive English language editing throughout the manuscript [All sections], focusing on eliminating overly long and repetitive sentences, improving grammatical consistency, and reducing passive voice usage. We have also removed unnecessary philosophical discussions (such as constructivist epistemology references) [Section 2.3.1] that detracted from the practical focus of our research. The revised manuscript emphasizes clear, direct communication of our integrated implementation framework and its practical applications in aviation safety management.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper safety-357649 A Study on Flight Crew’s Resilient Behavior Through Integration of Safety-I and Safety-II: Analysis of Aviation Safety Cases proposes an integrated aviation safety management approach by combining Safety-I's failure analysis with Safety-II's resilience-building strategies. Three real-world failure cases (related to FMS operation, turbulence response, and energy management) were analyzed, revealing that most causes stemmed from organizational factors rather than individual errors. The study defines “resilient behavior” in flight crews and offers practical guidelines, demonstrating that shifting from failure prevention to success expansion enhances safety culture and management effectiveness.

The manuscript uses professional and technically accurate language compliant with an academic audience in aviation safety.

Some sentences are overly long or repetitive; clearer and more concise phrasing would improve readability (e.g., lines 26–28). Minor grammatical inconsistencies are in the text (e.g., “behavior” vs. “behaviour” consistency, and the passive voice overuse). Figures 8 and 10 could benefit from more descriptive captions.

I suggest considering moving some of the highly detailed background on HEAR, PAM, and LPAC to an appendix or supplementary section. The Conclusions section could benefit from summarizing findings and offering more forward-looking statements.

The analysis of the state of the art demonstrates alignment with current aviation safety practices. However, a clearer distinction between the paper’s contributions and previous applications of Safety-I/II would help position the novelty. Citing more recent empirical studies or reviews on integrated safety approaches.

The conclusions could clarify how this model can be adopted by other stakeholders. The final implications section could distinguish more clearly between theoretical, managerial, and educational impacts.

Author Response

Comment 1: Some sentences are overly long or repetitive; clearer and more concise phrasing would improve readability (e.g., lines 26–28). Minor grammatical inconsistencies are in the text (e.g., "behavior" vs. "behaviour" consistency, and the passive voice overuse). Figures 8 and 10 could benefit from more descriptive captions.

Response 1: We have addressed the language concerns through comprehensive editing throughout the manuscript [All sections]. We eliminated overly long and repetitive sentences, improved grammatical consistency by standardizing terminology (consistently using "behavior"), and reduced passive voice usage where possible. For Figures 8 and 10 [Section 5.2.2], we have enhanced the visual presentation by reorganizing the layout from horizontal to vertical arrangement, which improves comparison effectiveness and readability, though we maintained the existing caption structure while focusing on clearer visual organization.

Comment 2: I suggest considering moving some of the highly detailed background on HEAR, PAM, and LPAC to an appendix or supplementary section. The Conclusions section could benefit from summarizing findings and offering more forward-looking statements.

Response 2: We have streamlined the theoretical framework descriptions [Sections 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4] by condensing the background information while maintaining essential content for reader understanding. Rather than moving content to appendices, we focused on improving integration and reducing redundancy to enhance the main text flow. The Conclusions section [Section 6] has been enhanced with more forward-looking statements, particularly in the future research directions [Section 6.3.2], which now provide specific pathways for broader validation and implementation across diverse aviation sectors.

Comment 3: The analysis of the state of the art demonstrates alignment with current aviation safety practices. However, a clearer distinction between the paper's contributions and previous applications of Safety-I/II would help position the novelty. Citing more recent empirical studies or reviews on integrated safety approaches.

Response 3: We have strengthened our contribution positioning throughout the manuscript [Sections 1.1, 1.2, 2.2] by clarifying the specific implementation gap our research addresses. We have better articulated how our work differs from previous Safety-I/II applications by emphasizing that existing studies focus on these approaches separately, while our research develops practical tools for their simultaneous implementation in aviation safety management. The novelty lies in addressing the implementation paradox where organizations adopt SMS frameworks theoretically containing Safety-II elements yet continue predominantly Safety-I reactive practices [Sections 1.1, 2.2].

Comment 4: The conclusions could clarify how this model can be adopted by other stakeholders. The final implications section could distinguish more clearly between theoretical, managerial, and educational impacts.

Response 4: We have significantly enhanced the practical implications section [Section 6.2] by organizing it into three distinct stakeholder categories: safety managers implementing integrated principles [Section 6.2.1], aviation organizations implementing systematic change [Section 6.2.2], and training organizations implementing principle-based education [Section 6.2.3]. Each subsection now provides specific, actionable guidance tailored to the respective stakeholder group, clearly distinguishing between theoretical contributions, managerial applications, and educational implementations. This restructuring provides concrete pathways for different stakeholders to adopt and implement our integrated framework.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 49: The three objectives are not introduced, there is a statement then the three objectives. These need to be blended together to flow with a narrative.

Line 58: This is a hanging sentence. This section should be one paragraph with a list of 5 items, section 2 to section 6, with line 89 to 91 ending the paragraph.

Line 92: This section is more background than literature review. This is one of the fundamental weaknesses of the study, it has limited literature.

Line 138: This should be a seperate section, not a subsection. The section incorrectly identifies tools as methodologies. The qualitative nature of the research needs to be better described, as do the research tools utilised. The use of deductive coding using these tools needs to be better described and clearly detailed.

Line 238: Please make it clear that convenience sampling was utilised, which is typical in qualitative research to ensure the cases address the research needs.

Line 243: This table needs to be closer to where it is noted. It does not belong at the start of Subsection 3.1 prior to any text.

Line 307: Better white space management is needed.

Line 344: Love it, nice!

Line 615: Font too small, likely needs to be two images.

Line 642: The percentages could easily be in brackets under each of the raw counts. Not sure how much more compact the table would be.

Line 741: Hopefully an editor will tell you to use on of the standard statements.

Line 756: This information is needed in the methodology section.

Line 773: There is a lack of references, in particular from Safety; if this is the correct journal for this to be published in, it clearly needs to be demonstrated that it adding to and expanding the content of the journal. See for example: https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=aviation+crew&journal=safety and/or https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=aviation+accidents&journal=safety 

Author Response

Comment 1: Line 49: The three objectives are not introduced, there is a statement then the three objectives. These need to be blended together to flow with a narrative.
Response 1: We have improved the narrative flow in the research objectives section [Section 1.2] by better integrating the introductory statement with the three specific objectives. The revised version provides smoother transitions and eliminates the abrupt shift from general statement to enumerated objectives, creating a more cohesive presentation of our research aims.

Comment 2: Line 58: This is a hanging sentence. This section should be one paragraph with a list of 5 items, section 2 to section 6, with line 89 to 91 ending the paragraph.
Response 2: We have restructured the research process section [Section 1.3] to eliminate the hanging sentence and create better paragraph flow. The section outline has been reorganized into a more cohesive narrative structure that naturally transitions between the different sections of the study, improving the overall readability and logical progression.

Comment 3: Line 92: This section is more background than literature review. This is one of the fundamental weaknesses of the study, it has limited literature.
Response 3: We acknowledge this limitation and have repositioned the content to better reflect its nature as background information [Section 2.1]. While we maintained our existing literature base due to revision scope constraints, we have enhanced the positioning of our contribution within the current knowledge landscape [Sections 1.1, 1.2, 2.2] to better articulate how our work addresses gaps not covered in existing literature, particularly the implementation paradox between SMS theoretical frameworks and actual practice.

Comment 4: Line 138: This should be a separate section, not a subsection. The section incorrectly identifies tools as methodologies. The qualitative nature of the research needs to be better described, as do the research tools utilized. The use of deductive coding using these tools needs to be better described and clearly detailed.
Response 4: We have restructured and enhanced the methodology section [Section 2.3] to better describe the qualitative nature of our research approach. We have clarified the distinction between methodologies and tools, and improved the description of how HEAR, LPAC, and PAM frameworks are systematically applied as analytical tools [Sections 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.4]. The deductive coding approach using predetermined HEAR categories is now more clearly explained in the analytical framework section.

Comment 5: Line 238: Please make it clear that convenience sampling was utilized, which is typical in qualitative research to ensure the cases address the research needs.
Response 5: We have clarified our sampling approach [Section 2.3.2] by explicitly stating that convenience sampling was utilized, which is appropriate for proof-of-concept framework validation. We have explained that this sampling method enables strategic selection of cases that represent technical, environmental, and managerial aspects of aviation operations, aligning with our qualitative research objectives for framework development.

Comment 6: Line 243: This table needs to be closer to where it is noted. It does not belong at the start of Subsection 3.1 prior to any text.
Response 6: We have improved the placement and integration of Table 1 [Section 3.1] to ensure better flow with the accompanying text. The table positioning has been adjusted to align more appropriately with its reference in the narrative, improving the logical presentation of case information.

Comment 7: Line 307: Better white space management is needed.
Response 7: We have improved white space management throughout the document [Various sections] to enhance visual presentation and readability. This includes better spacing around figures, tables, and section transitions to create a more professional and accessible layout.

Comment 8: Line 344: Love it, nice!
Response 8: We appreciate this positive feedback regarding the analytical presentation and have maintained this effective approach while continuing to improve other aspects of the manuscript.

Comment 9: Line 615: Font too small, likely needs to be two images.
Response 9: We have addressed the visual clarity issue for the comparative figures [Section 5.2.2] by reorganizing Figures 9, 10, and 11 from horizontal (side-by-side) to vertical (top-bottom) arrangement, which improves readability and comparison effectiveness without requiring font size changes that might affect journal formatting requirements.

Comment 10: Line 642: The percentages could easily be in brackets under each of the raw counts. Not sure how much more compact the table would be.
Response 10: We have improved the readability of Table 9 [Table 9] by removing the "%" symbols while maintaining the clear separation between raw counts and percentage values through the existing section dividers. This modification enhances visual clarity and reduces redundancy in the data presentation while preserving the comprehensive comparative information between conventional and integrated safety management approaches.

Comment 11: Line 741: Hopefully an editor will tell you to use one of the standard statements.
Response 11: We have maintained our current acknowledgment approach [Section 6] while being prepared to adjust to journal-specific requirements during the editorial process. We appreciate the guidance regarding standard editorial practices.

Comment 12: Line 756: This information is needed in the methodology section.
Response 12: We have reviewed the placement of methodological information and ensured that relevant details are appropriately positioned in the methodology sections [Sections 2.3, 2.4] rather than appearing later in the manuscript. This improves the logical flow and completeness of our methodological presentation.

Comment 13: Line 773: There is a lack of references, in particular from Safety; if this is the correct journal for this to be published in, it clearly needs to be demonstrated that it adding to and expanding the content of the journal.
Response 13: We acknowledge this important concern about journal-specific references. We have maintained our core reference count while focusing primarily on addressing the significant theory-practice gap in aviation safety management implementation. Our research approach prioritized developing practical solutions to bridge the identified gap between SMS theoretical requirements and actual operational practice rather than expanding theoretical depth. We have enhanced our discussion of how this practical contribution adds value to the aviation safety management field [Sections 1.1, 1.2, 6.1]. For future research, we will definitely incorporate the suggested reference list to add greater academic depth and better demonstrate alignment with the Safety journal's scholarly contributions, as this will strengthen both theoretical foundations and journal-specific positioning.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed all my previous concerns and provided comprehensive revisions. I recommend Acceptance of the manuscript in its current form.

Author Response

Acknowledgment to Reviewer

We extend our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. As part of our comprehensive revision process, we would like to inform you of the key improvements made to the manuscript.

Summary of Major Revisions:

Enhanced Methodology: We have completely restructured Section 3 to include all eight required methodological elements for valid qualitative research, providing detailed subsections on philosophical position, research design, sampling strategy, contextual detail, data collection, data analysis procedures, trustworthiness and rigor, and researcher reflexivity.

Expanded Literature Review: A new Section 2 "Literature Review" has been added, systematically integrating over 35 references throughout the manuscript, including more than 15 publications from Safety journal, to clearly position our research within the existing academic discourse.

Strengthened Research Foundation: The revised manuscript now provides a robust qualitative research foundation with systematic integration of Safety-I and Safety-II principles, supported by comprehensive literature positioning and rigorous methodological documentation.

We hope these revisions have improved the quality of our manuscript's contribution to aviation safety research, and we would greatly value any additional feedback you may have.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted

Author Response

Acknowledgment to Reviewer

We extend our sincere appreciation for the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. As part of our comprehensive revision process, we would like to inform you of the key improvements made to the manuscript.

Summary of Major Revisions:

Enhanced Methodology: We have completely restructured Section 3 to include all eight required methodological elements for valid qualitative research, providing detailed subsections on philosophical position, research design, sampling strategy, contextual detail, data collection, data analysis procedures, trustworthiness and rigor, and researcher reflexivity.

Expanded Literature Review: A new Section 2 "Literature Review" has been added, systematically integrating over 35 references throughout the manuscript, including more than 15 publications from Safety journal, to clearly position our research within the existing academic discourse.

Strengthened Research Foundation: The revised manuscript now provides a robust qualitative research foundation with systematic integration of Safety-I and Safety-II principles, supported by comprehensive literature positioning and rigorous methodological documentation.

We hope these revisions have improved the quality of our manuscript's contribution to aviation safety research, and we would greatly value any additional feedback you may have.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am very tempted to select reject here, there authors have directly refused to address the several of the previous comments.

To ensure that your study constitutes valid and credible qualitative research, the following methodological elements must be clearly described:

1. Philosophical Position: State the guiding research paradigm (e.g. pragmatism, interpretivism) and explain how it informs your research design.
2. Research Design: Clearly identify the qualitative tradition employed (e.g. case study, grounded theory), and cite appropriate methodological sources (e.g. Yin, Stake).
3. Sampling Strategy: Justify how the cases were selected, including criteria used and rationale for representativeness or conceptual relevance.
4. Contextual Detail: Provide a description of the data sources used for each case (e.g. incident reports, interviews, documents), including their provenance and relevance.
5. Data Collection: Explain what constitutes your data and how it was collected. If documents were analysed, specify what they were and how they were obtained.
6. Data Analysis Procedures: Describe how you analysed your data—e.g. coding schemes, thematic analysis (how the HEAR-LPAC-PAM tools) were applied to actual case material—not just conceptually but procedurally.
7. Trustworthiness and Rigour: Address how you ensured credibility and transparency in your findings (e.g. triangulation, peer review, audit trails, confirmability).
8. Researcher Reflexivity: Discuss your relationship to the cases or domain and any steps taken to reflect on or mitigate bias.

Your response to Comment 13 is inadequate and misses the point entirely. This is not a matter of future work, nor is it optional. You were explicitly asked to incorporate references from Safety and related scholarly sources to demonstrate that the work meaningfully engages with, and contributes to, the existing academic discussion within the journal’s scope. You have not done so.

Stating that your focus is on “practical contributions” does not exempt you from the scholarly obligation to position your work within the current state of the literature. Indeed, a practical contribution without demonstrated alignment to prior academic work is neither grounded nor credible. Enhancing a few lines in the discussion section does not satisfy this requirement.

You must undertake a focused review of relevant literature from Safety and related journals and cite it appropriately throughout the manuscript, not simply in one or two generalised summary paragraphs. This is fundamental to academic publishing, and until it is addressed properly, the manuscript cannot be considered for publication in its current form.

Please revise accordingly and provide a detailed explanation of where and how these references have been incorporated.

Author Response

Cover Letter for Revised Manuscript Submission

We thank you and the reviewers for the detailed feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all the reviewer's comments and have revised the manuscript to meet the journal's standards for valid and credible qualitative research. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment and explain the revisions made.

Response to Reviewer Comments

Comment 1: Methodological Elements for Valid Qualitative Research

Response 1: To ensure the validity and credibility of qualitative research, we have completely restructured Section 3 "Theoretical Framework and Research Methodology" to include all eight required methodological elements. We have added detailed subsections addressing philosophical position, research design, sampling strategy, contextual detail, data collection, data analysis procedures, trustworthiness and rigor, and researcher reflexivity to provide a systematic methodological foundation.

Specific Methodological Additions:

Philosophical Position: Previously not addressed, we have now included Section 3.2.1 where we stated our pragmatic philosophical approach and explained how it informs our research design. The pragmatic paradigm focuses on practical problem-solving rather than pursuing absolute truth, emphasizing the utility of knowledge in addressing real-world challenges.

Research Design: Previously only briefly mentioned, Section 3.2.2 now clearly identifies our qualitative multiple case study design following established approaches in aviation safety research. We cite appropriate methodological sources and explain the strategic reasons for selection.

Sampling Strategy: Previously limited in description, Section 3.2.3 now justifies our purposive convenience sampling strategy with detailed case selection criteria. Table 5 presents the case selection criteria and characteristics, demonstrating conceptual relevance for theoretical development.

Contextual Detail: Previously provided only basic case information, Section 3.2.4 now offers comprehensive description of data sources used for each case, including their provenance and relevance. Primary data sources include internal safety reports, official investigation reports, and reconstructed operational scenarios.

Data Collection: Previously minimally described, we now provide enhanced description of how the data collection strategy incorporates diverse sources providing different perspectives on implementation challenges while maintaining focus on organizational factors.

Data Analysis Procedures: Previously only mentioned the framework, Section 3.2.5 now describes how we analyzed our data procedurally. Analysis progresses through four systematic phases: (1) within-case HEAR analysis, (2) cross-case pattern analysis, (3) LPAC-based behavioral framework development, and (4) PAM-mediated integration validation.

Trustworthiness and Rigor: Previously not addressed, Section 3.2.6 now addresses credibility through comprehensive data triangulation using multiple sources including internal safety reports, official accident investigations, and regulatory documentation. Extended domain engagement leverages the researcher's 23-year aviation industry experience.

Researcher Reflexivity: Previously not addressed, Section 3.2.7 now discusses the researcher's relationship to the cases and bias mitigation steps. The researcher's 23-year aviation experience provides analytical advantages but potential limitations include industry insider perspective. Bias mitigation strategies include systematic framework application.

 

Comment 2: Literature Review and Scholarly Engagement

Response 2: To establish meaningful scholarly engagement with Safety journal and related academic literature, we have conducted a comprehensive literature review. We have added a new Section 2 "Literature Review" and systematically integrated over 35 references throughout the manuscript, including more than 15 publications from Safety journal, clearly positioning our research within the existing academic discourse.

Specific Literature Review Additions:

Safety Management Evolution: Previously limited theoretical background, Section 2.1 now includes recent Safety journal publications including Ham (2021) comprehensive review explaining that traditional Safety-I concepts prove insufficient for complex socio-technical systems, and Stroeve et al. (2022) SMS Maturity Assessment research revealing organizational challenges.

Organizational Factors in Aviation: Previously basic HFACS mention, Section 2.2 now presents Safety journal research consistently showing that human factors are involved in 70-80% of aviation accidents, with organizational factors predominating. We cite Kharoufah et al. (2018) comprehensive review and Kontogiannis and Malakis (2012) organizational breakdown patterns.

Implementation Gaps: Previously not systematically addressed, Section 2.3 now discusses current literature showing significant gaps between theoretical development of integrated Safety-I and Safety-II approaches and practical implementation in aviation contexts.

Research Positioning: Previously implicit positioning, we now provide clear positioning within existing literature demonstrating how our research addresses identified gaps through systematic integration of HEAR-LPAC-PAM frameworks.

We appreciate the reviewers' detailed feedback and believe the revised manuscript now adequately addresses the methodological requirements and meaningfully engages with Safety journal literature as requested. The manuscript now provides a robust qualitative research foundation with systematic integration of Safety-I and Safety-II principles, supported by comprehensive literature positioning and rigorous methodological documentation.

Sincerely,

Hyun Woo No & Woo Chang Cha

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for taking on board so much feedback. I know this isn't your primary area, and I can see you've made a genuine effort to understand qualitative methodology. I appreciate the improvements, and I think it's fair to say you've crossed the line from "underdescribed" to "reasonable enough".

A few minor things still need to be fixed before this is really ready:

1. Data Analysis Procedures (Section 3.2.5): You say there are four phases, which is fine, but you need to describe them procedurally not just conceptually. Just add a short paragraph with something like:
   “Each case was manually reviewed by the primary researcher using a structured HEAR coding template. Codes were recorded in Excel across HEAR levels, and recurring categories were grouped into themes which informed LPAC development. PAM coordination was mapped deductively based on operational pressures evident in the cases.”
   That kind of wording will do.

2. Philosophical Position (Section 3.2.1): Pragmatism is fine, but just cite a standard reference to back it up. Add something like:
   “This aligns with Creswell (2013) who notes that pragmatism is suitable when researchers are interested in real-world outcomes rather than philosophical abstraction.”
   That way it’s not just floating.

3. Literature Positioning (Section 2): You’ve added more references, and I’ll admit seeing my own citation helped, but it still needs a bit more meat. Add a couple more sentences to explicitly say how your work adds to prior Safety-II implementation frameworks. Something like:
   “Where previous studies such as Stroeve et al. (2022) or Pillay et al. (2020) identify implementation challenges, this study contributes a practical application framework for addressing those gaps in an aviation-specific operational context.”

4. Data Collection (Section 3.2.4): Right now it’s still vague. Just say plainly how you got the internal documents. Eg:
   “Internal safety reports were obtained through the first author’s operational role with airline access permissions.”
   Just a sentence to make provenance clear.

Author Response

Cover Letter for Revised Manuscript Submission

We sincerely appreciate the constructive and specific feedback provided by the reviewer. The reviewer's detailed guidance on methodological clarity has been invaluable in enhancing our manuscript to a more robust and methodologically sound contribution. We are particularly grateful for the reviewer's recognition of our genuine effort to understand qualitative methodology despite this not being our primary research area.

 

Summary of Reviewer Comments and Our Responses

Comment 1: Data Analysis Procedures (Section 3.2.5)

Reviewer Request: Provide procedural rather than just conceptual description of the four phases.

Our Response: We have added a detailed procedural paragraph explaining the systematic implementation of our analytical approach:

• Added explicit description of HEAR coding template usage with Excel-based categorization
• Clarified the iterative review process across LPAC categories using American Airlines Learning and Improvement Team's Master CodeBook
• Detailed the deductive mapping process for PAM coordination mechanisms
• Location: Section 3.2.5, highlighted in manuscript

 

Comment 2: Philosophical Position (Section 3.2.1)

Reviewer Request: Add standard reference to support pragmatism approach.

Our Response: We have strengthened the theoretical foundation by:

• Adding Creswell (2022) citation to support our pragmatic approach
• Expanding the explanation to emphasize problem-centered, pluralistic, and real-world practice orientation
• Connecting pragmatism specifically to aviation safety research requirements
• Location: Section 3.2.1, highlighted in manuscript

 

Comment 3: Literature Positioning (Section 2)

Reviewer Request: Add explicit explanation of how this work contributes to prior Safety-II implementation frameworks.

Our Response: We have enhanced Section 2.3 by:

• Adding specific differentiation from Stroeve et al. (2022) and Pillay et al. (2020)
• Explicitly stating that while previous studies identify implementation barriers, they provide limited practical guidance for operational integration
• Clarifying that our study provides "the first comprehensive integrated framework validated through systematic case study analysis"
• Location: Section 2.3, highlighted in manuscript

 

Comment 4: Data Collection (Section 3.2.4)

Reviewer Request: Clarify provenance of internal documents.

Our Response: We have added transparency regarding data access:

• Explicitly stated that "Internal safety communications were accessed through the researcher's legitimate operational role via established organizational safety reporting systems"
• Added complete anonymization procedures for personnel, timing, and identifying details
• Location: Section 3.2.4, highlighted in manuscript

 

Additional Enhancements Beyond Reviewer Requirements

In addition to addressing the reviewer's specific comments, we have made several improvements to strengthen the manuscript:

1. Enhanced Methodological Rigor: Expanded Table 6 (Data Analysis Procedures) with more detailed phase descriptions and expected outcomes for each analytical step.
2. Comprehensive Framework Demonstration (Section 5.3): Added Table 15 providing a detailed demonstration of the integrated HEAR-LPAC-PAM framework application using the FMS operation case. This table illustrates the systematic transformation of organizational deficiencies into actionable resilient behavior guidelines, serving as a comprehensive template applicable to diverse aviation safety challenges.
3. Improved Structural Organization: Restructured Sections 6.4 and 7.3 to enhance logical flow and clarity. Section 6.4 (Research Limitations and Future Directions) now provides a more systematic progression from current scope to methodological development directions and framework enhancement opportunities. Section 7.3 (Research Limitations and Future Directions) has been reorganized to clearly distinguish between current limitations and specific application expansion directions.
4. Clarified Research Contributions: Enhanced Section 7.2 to more clearly articulate both theoretical and practical implications for different stakeholder groups (safety managers, aviation organizations, and training institutions).

 

We have incorporated the reviewer's suggestions regarding procedural clarifications and theoretical strengthening. The reviewer's expertise in qualitative methodology has been instrumental in improving our work. All revisions are clearly highlighted in the manuscript for easy identification.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Sincerely,

 

Hyun Woo No
A330 Flight Operation, Asiana Airlines
Email: na05elec@kumoh.ac.kr

 

Woo Chang Cha (Corresponding Author)
Department of Industrial Engineering
Kumoh National Institute of Technology
Email: chaw@kumoh.ac.kr
Tel: +82-54-478-7657

Author Response File: Author Response.docx