Dear Authors,

Many thanks for your comments. I am very interesting in having this paper published -- as you see from the viewer metrics it has attracted considerable attention.

I found the comments of reviewer 2 to be very helpful and will contribute to an improved paper.

My greatest concerns are with the quality of the figures. For example, I think that Fig 1 could be improved by making it more "three-dimensional". Perhaps it would be better to make two figures out of Fig. 1: You obviously need an overview figure of the entire region -- but the blue polygon describing the runout area lacks detail. It does not show the steep slope above the deposition area. Would it be possible to add a figure with a close-up of Langtang village, including a two-dimensional profile of the avalanche track? This would give the interested reader a better overview of the terrain and the location of the deposits. And the travel distance is immense -- I think some 5km to 7km.

For me, the most important Figures are 2 and 5. In these images it is very difficult to see where the avalanche came from. These images should also demarcate not only the location of the debris -- but also the destruction caused by the avalanche air blast. (That is, the location of the debris relative to the villages. I know the tie-points are of interest to the authors--but I, as a modeller, am primarily interested in the limits of the destruction. For me Figs. 2 and 5 are also overloaded. I think that Figure 5a should be placed in a separate figure so that the reader can imagine how large the measured deposits are! Imagine standing in front of 20 m high deposits! This is unique data and should be highlighted.

In general, I think there are two few pictures giving the reader an overview of the terrain and destruction -- Perhaps the photos in Fig. 7 should be related to a map. Where are they exactly?

Fig 8 mixes tree diameter and debris thickness. True, both are histograms, but they are completely different quantities. The debris thickness I would place nearer to Fig. 5, the elevation difference.

You state that the ice "should have played a key role in initiating the entire event". Would it be possible to place a table in the paper with your estimated mass balance: (Mass/Volume of initial ice and snow, Mass/Volume of entrained snow and debris; mass/volume of dirt/rocky debris. I think this would be helpful for the reader to identify what kind of event it was -- ice-avalanche, snow avalanche or debris avalanche. It would also provide valuable constraints on avalanche dynamics models. Furthermore, it would highlight the role of entrainment -- or did the entire slope become instable at once from the shaking?

Many thanks for the corrections to your paper. I was especially pleased to see the updated figures which provide a much better overview of the avalanche and deposition area.

I read the paper with the idea that some group will try to simulate the avalanche (including the powder blast). I believe this is possible with the description of the mass (and thermal energy) balance presented in the paper.

I hope the paper attracts some attention. Thank you, and all the best, Perry Bartelt