We thank the reviewer for the detailed comments and thorough read of the paper. In a revised manuscript we are happy to address all of the comments. Below I have provided a response to the non-editorial comments to facilitate discussion - the remainder of the comments will be addressed through straightforward edits to the paper.

6.  This is a great point about nighttime wake passes generally being worse for added turbulence compared to daytime. From a general aviation standpoint, however, night passes through the wake would likely be extremely infrequent. The two most common scenarios where a general aviation aircraft may be expected to fly below the tip height, within 10 rotor diameters of a turbine, would be during aerial application missions (crop dusting), or on takeoff or landing from an airport. Aerial application is done only during the daytime. Furthermore, in North America, airports located that close to a turbine tend to be small public airstrips in rural areas (which generally have minimal traffic at night) or private airstrips (where nighttime operations are almost always impossible due to lack of runway lights).  That being said, it is worth mentioning this for clarity in the manuscript so I will certainly add a brief discussion of daytime vs nighttime scenarios.  Thank you for bringing this up.

7. Great questions, and it is certainly relevant to include pilot qualifications. The pilot was a commercially-rated skydiving pilot who regularly flies skydiving missions at Edmonton Skydive Centre. He has a multi-engine and instrument rating, with approximately 2 years of commercial flight experience. I will try to obtain an estimate of his total number of flying hours to add to the paper as well. He knew the purpose of the study beforehand and was asked to fly a set of test points at different distances from the turbine. He was provided with a brief set of questions to answer after the flights.  I will add details about this to the paper as well.

9. Flying this close to a turbine would not be a common experience for most GA pilots, as mentioned above. In some rural areas with wind turbines, aerial applicator pilots routinely approach turbines to spray crops (aerial applicator pilots are a small fraction of the overall number of GA pilots). Also, in some places, turbines are located in the vicinity of small or private airports. So while approaching within less than 2 RD while below tip height is certainly infrequent for the vast majority of GA pilots, it is possible in some specific circumstances.

10. It is interesting to note that the roll angle deviation magnitude in Wake Pass 5 is an outlier, but the pitch angle deviation and load factor deviation in this wake pass are not outliers and are consistent with the other results. This is in contrast to, for instance, Wake Passes 12 and 13 where both the roll, pitch (for pass 12), and load factors are all higher than the closer wake passes. My hypothesis is that there was a random roll perturbation that happened to occur in this time frame during Wake Pass 5 due to atmospheric turbulence, separate from the turbine-added turbulence. For instance, a small updraft due to ground heating that is stronger on one side of the aircraft than the other can cause a roll angle disturbance of that magnitude.  Thanks for bringing this up - it will be good to add mention of this in the paper.

Again we thank the reviewer for the insightful and helpful feedback. As mentioned in the response to RC1, we are happy to address all of these comments in the a revised paper, and will provide responses to some of the non-editorial comments below to facilitate discussion. The remainder of the comments will be addressed through straightforward edits to the paper.

Comment regarding line 190: This is a good point and the test points should be better explained. The pilot was asked to fly two passes each at 15 RD, 10 RD, 5 RD, and 3 RD, with one pass at each distance flown at the 90 kts configuration and one flown at the 80 kts configuration (see Table 4). In addition, the pilot was asked to repeat the 5 RD pass at 80 kts four times to provide more data at this specific configuration (Wake Passes 7-10).  So, in some cases test points were repeated albeit at different speeds and flap settings, while in some cases they were repeated identically. It should be noted that the closest distance requested for each point sometimes differed slightly from the closest distance actually flown (shown in Table 4) simply due to small errors in flight path tracking during the flights (e.g., Wake Pass 1 was intended to approach the turbine within 15 RD but approached within 13.5 RD instead).

Comment regarding line 275: Thank you for this comment, we agree that the pilot background is necessary to add and we will do so. Regarding objective rating scales such as Cooper-Harper, asking the pilot to assess handling qualities quantitatively was considered; however, although the pilot is a commercial pilot, he is not a trained test pilot and thus has no experience or training in providing quantitative handling qualities ratings for aircraft. It was determined that his qualitative descriptions of the experience flying through the wake, in combination with the flight data and videos, would be sufficient for assessing whether a hazard existed when flying through the wake.