Responses to referee # 1

We thank the referee for her/his valuable remarks.
We appreciate very much that s/he helped us to correct
the data interpretation problems which appeared in
the original version of the paper.  We have taken into 
account all of her/his comments when preparing the revised 
version of our paper.

Responses to specific points:

Major remark:
We have reconsidered the density data and we have corrected
Figure 2. It now shows only the data of the Whisper instrument.
This is sufficient since the triggered emissions are only observed
in the low density region where the frequency range of Whisper is
sufficient to cover the observed variations of the local plasma
frequency. We have also added an indication of where the data in
Figure 2b are placed on the time scale of Figure 2a as the
referee suggested.

Minor remarks

 a) Abstract has been modified to focus the text mainly at the three
examples shown in the paper.

 b) The text on page 10 corresponding to the corrected
Figure 2 has been completely rewritten.

 c) WAITING FOR MARK ADRIAN'S RESPONSE

 d) The separation between spacecraft 2 and 4 was approximately
123 km at the time of observation rather than the 360 km stated
in the original submission. The mistake was corrected in the text
on page 11 and in Table 1.

 e) The WBD instrument transmits the waveform data in 8 bits at any
given time but the AGC allows for a much higher dynamic range than
the 4-5 orders corresponding to the 8-bit waveform transformed
to a power spectrogram. The ratio of power carried by the secondary
triggered emission to the power carried by the stronger components
of the spectrum is roughly comparable to  104. This means that these
emissions are still detectable under the constraints given by the
instantaneous dynamic range of the instrument.

 f) The text was modified to emphasize the role of the EFW data in the
density estimation for this case

 g) We have verified that the density variations seen on Cluster 2
correspond to the  variations of the hiss intensity. The text on
page 14 was modified. We have also modified the text on page 15
to make clear that only the values around 0.7 of the
electromagnetic planarity estimator indicate a concentration
of wave vectors around a single direction.

 h) Information on the density modulations has been added to
the text on page 16.

 i) a paragraph explicitly mentioning the maximum separation
distance between the spacecraft for the case of example 3 has been
added on page 16.



Responses to referee # 2

We thank the referee for her/his valuable comments.
We have taken into account all of her/his comments
when preparing the revised version of our paper.

Main Comments:  We have addressed this under Section 1 and 4
specific points below.

Responses to specific points:

Section 1:
   - References are added as the referee suggested
   - The sentence on page 4 has been modified

Section 2:
   - General description of the orientation of the antennas has been added.
   - The text on page 6 has been modified
   - The description of the frequency ranges / time resolution of all
     the instruments has been improved.

Section 3:
   - Table 2 has been renamed to Table 1 and referred to on page 8.

Section 4:
   - The references have been added.

References:
   - New references have been added as the referee suggested
   - Ordering was corrected

Figure captions:
   - corrections were made as suggested.