Please see the attached document.

General comments:

An interesting article about the application of sensitivity analyses to transient load cases. As the framework has been used before, the novelty mainly lies in the application area to gust cases. The largest part of the paper is describing the methodology, which is quite rigorous and well written. Although there are many visualizations of the results, it is felt that a more elaborate interpretation of selected results (why are certain parameters more impactful?) could be valuable. 

It is recommended to follow up on the below suggestions for improvement:

-p1 abstract last sentence

Acknowledging the number of parameters to define the gusts in Table 4, the five impactful parameters mentioned in the abstract constitute almost three quarter of the total parameters. To what extent can this be considered as an expected outcome?

-p3 table 1 

To what extent is the detail of this table needed for the storyline in section 2? Could it be removed as well and the relevant info explained in wording or is it relevant to refer to in the remainder of the paper?

-p4 section 2.2 Test system

A wind turbine on a semisubmersibe platform is chosen for this study instead of an onshore wind turbine. Is there a particular reason for this choice in the light of the gust cases? Would it be more straightforward to use a bottom fixed turbine for this purpose, yielding similar results for turbine load semsitivity to gusts?

-p8 line 124

Can the authors comment on the apparent absence of coupling between the parameters and its influence on the current sensitivity study?

-p11 line 174 

Please clarify based on what info and assumptions the different parameters for the two sites in table 5 and 6 are defined. If these are defined in the following sections it would be good to indicate that or place the tables afterwards.

-p15 line 207

Acknowledging the differences in desired airfoil characteristics along the span of a wind turbine blade, can the authors comment on the validity of a linear interpolation of these characteristics between root and tip?

-Figures 15 to 16 and 18 to 21 (and some in the appendices) contain too many lines/bars and too small axis annotation and legend fonts for a reader to allow interpretation. Consider redesigning these plots to convey the necessary information in an adequate manner.

-p31 lines 421-423

The aerodynamic model challenge mentioned relates to unsteady airfoil effects. It is known that the defined gusts also challenge dynamic wake and yaw models. Would this be a recommendation to investigate e.g. using a free vortex wake method?