That is some fireball. The plane must have been fully fueled.

Glad no one else was hurt.

The FAA has very strict standards about where airshow planes can fly and what types of maneuvers they can do. This is to prevent spectator injuries, and the regulations do a damned good job as was the case this time. NOBODY ON THE GROUND WAS INJURED. Extremely few spectator injuries have ever occurred at airshows in the US because of these regulations.

If you want to see these things fly, watch a video on the internet.

To me, these shows are just accident magnets.

like the old airwolf (Bel)

But there are hundreds of air shows each year, with an accident with only the pilot getting killed every 5, and people getting killed every 10 or so.

I can only name 2 air shows where people were killed in the past 20 years. I'm kinda iffy on the second one.

It's kinda like plane crashes. There are thousands of flights each year, but when one goes down, it's all over the news.

But flying is still the safest way to travel. I don't do it because I get puking bad motion sickness.

But I still love planes.

Despite the (relatively rare, as you point out) risk.

Summer is the heavy air show season, so there are tons of these things going on all over the country right now. Naturally the odds are going to be higher for an accident.

If your friend dies in an auto accident, would you walk to the funeral?

The USA has most of the best pilots in the world and an unparalleled inventory of serviceable aircraft and to see them in action is a thrill. I'm quite proud of US aviation history; great American pilots have done great things--even walked on the Moon.

Why do we let any Homo Sapiens get out of bed? It's too dangerous, I tell ya...

That means there are more and more general aviation pilots flying hot rod jet trainers. The problem may be hours in type, or how many training hours the pilot has had flying a version of this particular high performance aircraft. Military students crash often enough, and they learn under strict supervision.

There's a guy at my local field that has one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-39_Albatros

Thanx for posting

Since a lot of people have them you can find parts that fit them and mechanics who can work on them. I have no desire to own one. They are expensive to operate and even though they are trainers they are still inherently unstable.

Curious as to where you are getting that and even if true, why it applies here.

All fighters aircraft (and to a lesser degree fighter trainers) are designed to be inherently unstable. That's why they generally make for a good aerobatic aircraft. Aircraft like say a Cessna Skyhawk or a Piper Cherokee are designed to be inherently stable, which is why they are great for use as primary and instrument trainers and cross country flight. When you log a few thousand hours in various aircraft with various degrees of aircraft stability, you learn to appreciate the advantage that good aircraft stability gives you for cross country flight and especially so in IMC and turbulence.

Unstable is better used for airplanes that require an active control system like the Wobbly Goblin (F-117), aircraft that without active and continuous control inputs would diverge. Yes an L-39 is less sedate that the plodding light aircraft designs of the late 50s/early 60s, but so are most LSAs, which are rapidly becoming the dominant trainers for GA. For example, compare a Remos with 150 or 172. Those that used to whine about the "aggressive handling" of the GA Grumman line would be in shock today.

I have several dozen different aircraft in my logbooks, including the Albatross. It was not particularly unstable. Controls are light, but the aircraft does not have a strong tendency to diverge. It was a knock off of the T-38 and handles much like it in many ways.

Cheers!

course they removed International Harvester from there

http://www.hopperflight.com/

Ejection seat with pilot in it