Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall

This is an interesting paper and concept, but I think it may be good to consider the airport operations and airport design considerations; and it may be appropriate to add a co-author with more knowledge in in aviation.  A knowledgeable co-author with aviation expertise could integrate information about relevant topics such as

Airports have defined “imaginary surfaces” under FAR 77 to ensure safe approach and take off.  How do aircraft locations align with these well defined areas? 

John Wayne airport has departure procedures to reduce noise; this affects departure path and should be noted (https://www.faa.gov/tv/?mediaId=1478) when discussing aircraft flight paths

Other information specific to SNA: https://www.ocair.com/generalaviation/pilotinformation

Please proofread the paper for “readability” and format issues.

 

Page 1

Last paragraph (P), line 4:  each aircraft/2 flight,  delete /2

 

Page 2

Section (S) 1.3

Spell out #

 

S 1.4.

Note research opportunities when GA aircraft will be required to have ADSB on Jan 1 2020

 

Missing c in case in second to last P

 

Fig 1 and 2:  what is green?  What is orange?  Yellow? White? (same for other figures)

 

Page 4

Fix spacing at bottom of page (and on page 7 and on other pages throughout…)

 

Page 7

Grid at 33.6421366667,-117.841723333 (over UC Irvine, Figure 9)

Grid at 33.7085366667, -117.891703333 on the other side of the airport (NW)

Mark these locations on the figures for clarity.

 

Figure 9 use reference labels on map for clarity rather than descriptions that may not be familiar (e.g., past the open marsh is not as meaningful for someone unfamiliar with the city)

“Therefore, the zero foot grid categorization there for SUAS activity is a mystery.” I think a co-author with aviation expertise could probably solve this mystery.

Page 9

Data quality:  how many erroneous data points were found and what are the likely causes of error (E.g., incorrect lat/long or altitude?).  The lat long references are not very meaningful if they don’t correlate with a graph that has lat long marked on it.

There could be a 717 at the airport providing unscheduled passenger service or providing cargo service even if there is no regular scheduled passenger service with this aircraft

Author Response

see cover letter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting and deserves research. The paper compares the altitude limits to manned aircraft traffic data to deliver a spot check on actual traffic within 5 miles of the KSNA airport on 5 specific days. However, the approach adopted in this paper does not really provide any novel research contribution and lacks literature support. It's rather a report on the findings, not a key research.

 

Our advice is to put more effort into clarifying the motivation behind your research as well as stressing the key critical findings. A more specific, focused, in-depth study would be more beneficial in this clearly important and emerging area.

Author Response

see cover letter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper “SUAS and Manned Traffic near KSNA: Spot Check of the SUAS Facility Map” describes a data mining program to identify aircraft. In my opinion, the article is suitable for the purposes of the journal.

Title: The title of the paper is informative. It includes important terms and the message of the article. Do not use acronyms in the title. Could you explain SUAS and KSNA, if suitable.

Keywords: Please add more keywords.

Abstract: The abstract does not explain the context. Please add more information to provide a general picture of the methodological approach. The main outcomes are described.

Introduction and literature review: Introduction defines the focus, but the structure of the text is not explained. No literature review. It is necessary to prepare the reader to understand the research part of the article. In my opinion, more articles should be added to the literature review. A summary table comparing the contributions could support the explanation.

Materials and Methods: In my opinion, the material and methods section is not extensively discussed. The description of data mining method can be improved.

Conclusions: Clear and adequate.

Author Response

see cover letter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Disagree with text in section 1, while the restrictions may be confusing to the author they are not confusing to people with who have followed the progression of Part 107, drone safety at airports, and/or airport operational safety.   

"The motivation for this work was to understand the confusing increase in restrictions of drone

activity near KSNA and figure out what the FAA thinks drone operators should do to fly more safely

near airports (i.e. within a few miles but not in the immediate vicinity). It was a purely curiosity

driven exercise in air traffic, safety, and drones."

 

Disagree with text in section 4.3 which is misleading (and offensive); just because the author may not be familiar with the backstory and context for drone restrictions does not make them arbitrary or whimsical. Journal articles must demonstrate appropriate subject matter expertise which is not waived by disclaimers that it is a curiosity exercise.

"drone flight restrictions and safety analysis should be based on hard data, not gut feeling or the whim of a specific air traffic control tower and his/her feelings towards drones."

 

 

Author Response

see cover letter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Most of my comments are satisfied. The problem is well motivated and the contribution is technically sound. 

 

Author Response

see cover letter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made all the required changes. The article can be published in this revised version.

Author Response

see cover letter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf