the issue is not whether victims who haven't assumed a risk to which they were involuntarily exposed don't sometimes get hurt or killed. they do.
rather the issue is whether events such as flying displays or other spectacles which carry the risk of causing large numbers of casualties when (not if) something goes wrong will/should face tougher restrictions to further protect those who aren't participants or spectators.
as a practical matter, i would guess that commercial air shows might face far higher, perhaps prohibitive, insurance premiums in future which has nothing to do with government oversight but rather the market telling punters how much they need to pay to for the risk they impose on others
I suspect lawyers interpreting the law of negligence will determine what measures are taken to reduce the risk and cost of liability for loss resulting from events at air shows.