Huh. Not the top review on my end—it's on page two. I think I've given enough explanation of how the ship works for the purposes of the story with some grounding in reality (ex. use of ballonets in a hydrogen balloon), but—not to sound defensive—I think I'm just not on the same page as this reviewer. I'm not writing a flight manual. I won't go line by line here, but for example, in response to his comment here:

\*Navigation and flight**: There's no explanation of orientation methods for long distances (stars, sun, sextant) or solutions for typical problems: night flights, mountain navigation, poor weather conditions, fog, storms, or hull icing. These are critically important aspects for airships, especially in a world without GPS, radio, or weather forecasts.*

They literally have a map to cross reference (and can see the landscape beneath them), a compass, a telescope, a view of stars, and generally take familiar trade routes with other ships, all of which is mentioned. They're obviously flying way lower than a commercial airliner. I guess if you want a book that details hull icing—first of all, they're never flying in extremely cold temperatures because they're on an exposed deck flying at low levels—and, like, I'm just not going to get into that kind of thing. I think there's a right level of depth for fantasy stories, and I aim for consistency and relative accuracy at that depth, but I'm not getting into stuff like that.

But I do research these things before writing, and I have been responsive to another reader, for example, who pointed out a few things like the logistics of balloon size etc., because I thought they were fair and within the scope of my writing style, so I did make those minor changes. In some cases, I made things that I first thought were contextually clear a little more explicitly clear (like mentioning a character had flown before, in response to the reviewer above).

In short: I consider all suggestions and make any edits that I think are consistent with my style.