Parametric Study of Structured UTM Separation Recommendations with Physics-Based Monte Carlo Distribution for Collision Risk Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this article, the authors present the parametric study on UTM separation recommendation using a modified Monte-Carlo-driven Reich collision risk model. However, I will comment on some aspects to improve the quality of the manuscript that the suggested changes must be highlighted:

-The authors must write the acronyms with their respective meanings. The meanings of the acronyms must be written with their first capital letter. This error must be corrected in all acronyms in the manuscript.

-Authors must correctly write the tense in the Sections. In addition, there are misspellings of some written words.

-Cross references must be written entirely (Figure, Section, Algorithm, Table, Equation).

-The authors must correctly write the Equations.

-The Figures must contain a short and precise title, not present an explanation that can be written in the document.

Has the experiment been simulated?

-What are the parameters of the scenario where the experiment was performed?

-The Conclusions must be improved.

In this article, the authors present the parametric study on UTM separation recommendation using a modified Monte-Carlo-driven Reich collision risk model. However, I will comment on some aspects to improve the quality of the manuscript that the suggested changes must be highlighted:

-The authors must write the acronyms with their respective meanings. The meanings of the acronyms must be written with their first capital letter. This error must be corrected in all acronyms in the manuscript.

-Authors must correctly write the tense in the Sections. In addition, there are misspellings of some written words.

-Cross references must be written entirely (Figure, Section, Algorithm, Table, Equation).

-The authors must correctly write the Equations.

-The Figures must contain a short and precise title, not present an explanation that can be written in the document.

Has the experiment been simulated?

-What are the parameters of the scenario where the experiment was performed?

-The Conclusions must be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Some abbreviations may need to add full spelling:

- FTE (Flight Technical Error?) (line 207)

- ATCo (Talbe 3)

- MTOW (line 322)

- TLOS (line 325)

2. Figure 3 should be referred in the text.

3. In Figure3, the legends need to be added in (a) and (b).

4. In the line 173, "with with |T|" may be "with |T|". 

I have no comment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In manuscript the authors presented a parametric evaluation and analysis of modified Reich collision risk model using for structured UTM separation recommendation based on Monte-Carlo Distribution for Collision Risk Model. Although, this article presents a lot of useful experiments that have been performed for evaluation and validation while considering different configuration scenarios  i.e., same, parallel, and vertical tracks. The results obtained are discussed with solid justifications integrated with various parameters. However, some changes are required to be considered for possible publication.

        I.          The abstract should present the energy efficiency achieved in a discrete number of percentages i.e., how much the proposed system is better than existing benchmark schemes.

      II.          It is not clear from the literature that “what is/was the issues in existing models.”

     III.          The literature should clearly mention the strengths and challenges exist that need to be addressed.

    IV.          The Literature review is outdated as only one paper i.e., reference number 24 is from the year 2022. It is required to have 30 % of the literature should be from the last three years.

      V.          The symbols used for the representation of process/event are somehow confusing especially in section 3 i.e., "simulation and model setup". It is suggested to draw a symbol table for ease of understating and clarity.

    VI.          Several short forms have been used without their full description at first occurrence. These should be addressed accordingly.

   VII.          The Mavic 2 Enterprise Series is no longer in production. Then why it has been used for experiments.

 VIII.          The results and discussion section only presents the comparative analysis of various tracks. Then how, the authors claim that the proposed work is more efficient than others. This should be justified.

    IX.          The current version of conclusion lacks coherency and consistency with the manuscript draft. It should be rewritten.

Some grammar check is required 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to the authors for performing some of the suggested changes. However, several points have not been achieved, and this article cannot be published if the authors do not perform these changes:

- The correct writing of the acronyms. The proper form is, for example, "Advance Air Mobility (AAM)"; the authors have not made these changes since many acronyms are not correctly written or their meaning is incomplete.

-The words "Figure, Section, Algorithm, Table, Equation" have not been correctly written or complete. These words within the scientific article must go with their first capital letter.

Thanks to the authors for performing some of the suggested changes. However, several points have not been achieved, and this article cannot be published if the authors do not perform these changes:

- The correct writing of the acronyms. The proper form is, for example, "Advance Air Mobility (AAM)"; the authors have not made these changes since many acronyms are not correctly written or their meaning is incomplete.

-The words "Figure, Section, Algorithm, Table, Equation" have not been correctly written or complete. These words within the scientific article must go with their first capital letter.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have reviewed the manuscript to correct all the cross-reference according the MDPI style guide that we could locate. We have also revised the capitalization for full-form of acronym as suggested.

Best Regards