Sara at Wren tells me the plane was flown a good 45 times, so that's close enough. I still wouldn't blame the LMA for taking a pass on a 3rd go.

There are various things about this project that should cause concern. The weight. The need(?) for 8 engines, and the added weight & complexity. Even the judgement of flying in less than excellent weather in front of a crowd and near populated area (1st crash). Now another mishap. Two points make a line - where does it point to?

I do get to review aircraft design reports from time to time on a model/giant scale - some this big, nothing this heavy. The builder of something this size has a responsibility to be educated on aircraft engineering enough to design a reasonable structure and airplane. As does the LMA if they are going to approve one. But if responsibility was a bowl of soup, you wouldn't split it into two smaller cups for the designer and LMA. You'd get a 2nd bowl of soup. The fact that the LMA reviewed and approved this in no way lessens the owner's responsibility for safety.