As long as security for passengers and crew is as tight as that at major airports i see no reason why these should be any less dangerous than helicopter rides and a lot more exclusive. But I agree with Mr. A Brown in that it would be the perfect use for Battersea power station. If only the merchant banker owners could agree.

A Carraro, Horsham, West Sussex

On 18 January 1994 I wrote a letter to The Times Magazine (as then was) which was published: it said "Bankside Power Station......What better use for the tower than as a mooring mast for airships ? This would not interfere with any other use for the building. The tourist potential is enormous, the safety of the river corridor coinciding with the most spectacular views. I believe that airships will make a comeback: imagine the fuss that would be caused by a proposal to erect a new mooring mast anywhere near the City. Now is the moment to secure what is already there.

antony brown, warminster, UK

Ahhh... bring back the voyage of style - one almost expects Indiana Jones to appear, clouting the Nazi jaws onboard....
Our times have seen the disappearence of true elegance, the importance of the moment; replaced by trashy food, materials and cramped space.
The true voyage is not the getting there, but how you travel.

Bernard Shapiro, Christchurch, New Zealand

We should do all we can to encourage the use of airships and reduce the use of planes. The engines of the airship will be a lot quieter than the various hellicopters usually found over cities, and produce a tiny fraction of the polution gven off by other forms of air transport.

This might only be a tourist sightseeing venture, but the future of commercial aviation should be airships, not areoplanes.

Jack Howard, Leeds, Yorkshire

Often overlooked is the loud sound of the engines with these airships that help it maneuver. A 'hot air" ballon is quiet - these are not quiet and since they are moving slowly can be very annoying and loud.
I suppose that an urban environment it may not be noticed but this is noise and sight pollution.

tommy, new york, NY, USA

Any details on how to get tickets for these trips?

Lawrence Millington, Bournemouth, England

Ian Payne -

Total devastation? I think not.

The bombing was not accurate and rarely hit important targets - as usual in air bombing, it was mainly the civilian population that suffered - at that time a new element in war. The amount of damage and loss of life was very small in relation to London's population and number of buildings.

Other towns along the East Coast were also bombed but again the results were small in relaton to the German technical effort and lives lost, as many Zeppelins were shot down. Their crews, of course, had no chance of survival.

Negligible though the results may have been, they were of course totally devastating for those who were killed , injured or lost their homes.

Peter Lloyd, BLACKER HILL, South Yorkshire

Hydrogen was not the likely cause of the Hindenburg disaster.
After the fire started the vessel was still in equalibrium, meaning level and not descending so the gas bags were not venting. The smoke was black and the flames were red, not characteristic of a hydrogen fire.
What is likely is that the cover of the ship, which was doped with a combination of aluminum and iron, ignited due to a static electricity build-up in an electrically isolated panel near the rudder.

Larry v., Hornepayne, Ontario, Canada

I have WAR ILLUSTRATED mags from WW 1 which show the total devastation of Zeppelin raids over London. AMAZING !!!

Ian Payne, WALSALL,

Will they have to pay the congestion charge?

Paul, Camberley,