AIDER: Aircraft Icing Potential Area DEtection in Real-Time Using 3-Dimensional Radar and Atmospheric Variables

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper provides a promising method for promoting aircraft safety. The number of cases (10) is somewhat limited and the authors should note that further evaluation under a wider variety of synoptic conditions is needed. It is clearly written and can be published after some comments are addressed.

l. 8-9 – The sentence reads as if icing occurs when T is above 0° C. Kindly rewrite. l. 57 – Kindly expand. What icing incident?

l. 81-100 The authors might want to consider putting the information in this paragraph into table form. This would improve the readability of the paper and the table itself would be very useful.

l. 100 - radar data set?
l. 149 – indicate the location

l. 152 – Some explanation is needed about how the met data and model output was actually used. Was a method fusing met data with model output used or was a simple choice made based on the availability of met data? The forecast accuracy of the model used should also be discussed. In addition, references for any relevant publications detailing KLAPS should be given.

l. 253 – it would be very helpful if the authors put the conditions into a small table instead of burying them in the text.

l. 271 - The authors should include some explanation as to why it looks like all the misses are above open water in Figure 6. Is this because of the lack of observational meteorological data? chance? other factors related to the extent of radar coverage?

l. 371 – The authors should discuss the major factors limiting the applicability of their method and what steps could be taken to improve the approach. They should also note that they have tested their approach against a rather small number of cases (10) and that more cases are needed to conduct a more formal analysis of the data.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments in detailed and interesting. We were very happy to receive your comments and we tried our best to answer it.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study proposed a radar-based detection algorithm for icing potential areas through the analysis of 3D gridded radar and aircraft data, enabling the monitoring and issuance of real-time icing alerts. The authors firstly validated the algorithm and demonstrated a notable performance with a probability of detection value of 0.88. The algorithm was then applied to three distinct icing cases under varying environmental conditions—frontal, stratiform, and cumuliform clouds, the results include observable icing potential areas across the entire Korean Peninsula. The main goal of this study is to develop an algorithm capable of detecting icing potential areas and fill the gap for the diagnosis and prediction of aircraft icing research within Korea. Overall, the development and applications of this algorithm are well elaborated. The idea presented in the paper represents a sizeable effort to extend and develop the tool for aircraft icing prediction and flight safety improving. The paper is well-written and organized, I do have some suggestions, please make necessary modifications.

1.     Introduction: Please clearly present the significance of this study, the aim and results mentioned in this section are good, but it would be nice to stress the significance and contributions.

2.     Temperature, SLD, and LWC are selected. Why did the authors select these variables? It would be helpful if the authors can present a more compelling motivation for why these particular quantities of interest are worth knowing. Similarly, when developing the detection algorithm for icing potential areas, three types of data were utilized: 3D radar, 3D atmospheric, and aircraft observation data. Please provide some references to give the context.

3.     Data set: what’s the size of the data set and what’s the effect on the prediction accuracy?

4.     Conclusion: It’ll be nice if the authors can discuss the limitations or the current studies or the future work.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments in detailed and interesting. We were very happy to receive your comments and we tried our best to answer it.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have thoroughly reviewed the provided research paper. Firstly, I must emphasize the significance and urgency of this study in addressing aviation safety concerns. Icing poses a serious threat to aircraft, making the development of real-time icing detection algorithms crucial in preventing aviation accidents caused by icing.

The research team has employed a variety of data sources, including radar variables, atmospheric variables, and aircraft icing data, to conduct in-depth statistical analysis and investigation into potential icing areas. The algorithm they have developed not only identifies potential icing areas promptly but also classifies and warns based on the severity of icing, providing a critical early warning mechanism for the aviation in Korean.

Overall, I believe this research holds immense practical value and academic significance. It lays an important foundation for further research in aviation safety and offers a viable solution for practical application. The specific review comments are as follows:

1.Based on the provided content, I have concerns regarding the accuracy of using S-band radar reflectivity to calculate Liquid Water Content (LWC) throughout this paper. In the described scenario, supercooled liquid droplets forms when temperatures are below 0 degrees Celsius. Therefore, using radar reflectivity to determine LWC may have limitations. the use of S-band radar, with its longer wavelength, may exacerbate estimation errors when encountering supercooled liquid water. This is because S-band radar is more likely to encounter mixed-phase particles, where supercooled liquid water is mixed with ice particles. Consequently, the radar reflectivity is predominantly contributed by the ice-phase particles, leading to potential overestimation of liquid water content. Therefore, caution should be exercised when interpreting radar reflectivity data in icing conditions, particularly when utilizing S-band radar. It is advisable for researchers to explore alternative methodologies that can effectively differentiate between supercooled liquid water and ice-phase particles to enhance the accuracy of LWC estimation.

2. I suggest the authors consider employing alternative methods (e.g King LWC probe or CDP... ...) for accurately estimating liquid water content in further research to ensure precise detection and assessment of icing potential areas.

3.In Figures 7 and 8, the classification labels for Habits are presented in Korean. To ensure clarity and accessibility to a wider audience, it is recommended to modify the labels to English.

4. While the manuscript presents an extensive analysis of various radar and environmental variables within aircraft icing regions, a question arises regarding the statistical characteristics of these key parameters in stratiform and convective clouds. Is there a significant difference in the statistical characteristics between stratiform and convective clouds?

Author Response

Thank you for your comments in detailed and interesting. We were very happy to receive your comments and we tried our best to answer it.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

See review in attached .pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

See review in attached .pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments in detailed and interesting. We were very happy to receive your comments and we tried our best to answer it.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewer acknowledges the author's efforts in addressing several key issues identified in the original manuscript. The revisions made by the author have substantially improved the clarity and quality of the paper, and I am generally satisfied with those modifications. 

Author Response

Thank you for giving your valuable time and comments.
We believe that your comments have greatly improved the clarity and quality of our paper.
We appreciate again for all the time and effort you put into our paper.