Talk:Joseph A. Walker

"The first space traveler to never fly into orbit?"
Here's the second paragraph of this article, with the boldface added by me:

"In 1963 Walker made three flights above 50 miles, thereby qualifying as an astronaut according to the United States definition of the boundary of space. The latter two, X-15 Flights 90 and 91, also surpassed the Kármán line, the internationally accepted boundary of 100 kilometers (62.14 miles).  Making the latter flights immediately after the completion of the Mercury and Vostok programs, Walker became the first person to fly to space twice.  He was the only X-15 pilot to fly above 100 km during the program, and also became the first space traveler to never fly into orbit."

The first two Mercury flights were suborbital. If Walker completed his two flights after the completion of the Mercury program, how is he "the first space traveler to never fly into orbit?" Ormewood (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to manually revert the "first space traveler to never fly into orbit" claim. Ormewood (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ormewood, Walker if the first space traveler who did not go to orbit after his first flight. Alan Shepard who was suborbital later flew an Apollo mission. Gus Grissom later flew a Gemini mission. As a result, Walker is the only early astronaut who did not follow up with an orbital flight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StellarNerd (talk • contribs) 05:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * OK. I interpreted it to mean that he was the first person to make a suborbital flight. It seems like kind of an obscure distinction to me, but feel free to restore the original version. Ormewood (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeager's opinion
Knowing that Yeager wasn't involved with the XB-70 flyby/photo-op or the investigation (as far as I know), how much weight does his opinion, in 1986, carry that Walker lacked formation flying experience? How does that hold up to recent books regarding the Valkyrie program and the accident? — Mustang_DVS (talk | contribs) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

bs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seansturg (talk • contribs) 16:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that Yeager’s remarks should be deleted. Yeager is notorious for giving NACA pilots bad press. Walker was a fully qualified USAAC fighter pilot (Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal with seven oak leaf clusters) and would have had the same training as Yeager. Wikipedia is not here to promote personal disagreements between Yeager and NACA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONDARIZ (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Since there has been no objections I have now removed the disputed text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONDARIZ (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Yeager observation is an authoritative one and the quote is properly cited. More discussion is required, other than two editors, with comments three years apart. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC).

As Mustang dvs has already pointed out: Yeager wasn't involved with the XB-70 flyby/photo-op or the investigation. He is simply a famous test pilot. Where is the authority? I bet there are plenty of pilots with an oppinion on the accident, should we quote them too? Neil Armstrong covers the accident in his biography (he worked closely with Walker) and makes no mention of lacking formation flying skills. The fact is that NASA pilots flew formation as much as USAF test pilots and had the exact same pilot training (being ex military pilots). Another fact is that the only one putting the blame squarely on Walker's formation flying skills is Yeager. That being said Walker's aircraft did cause the accident, but it's should be filed under pilot error/misjudgment (even a mechanical problem) rather than lack of formation flying experience. Read Donald Mallick's autobiography 'The smell of kerosene' for a description by someone who actually flew the XB-70 and knew about Walkers flying skills. Mallick specifically refutes the theory put forward by Yeager: Walker had a reputation as a fine test pilot and a levelheaded professional, dedicated, and safety conscious. He had nearly 5,000 hours of flight experience and had flown chase for the XB-70 nine times, eight in an F-104.
 * Yeager's credibility is what you are deriding? Find an alternate opposing view, give it a verifiable citation, and treat it like it is, two opposing observations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC).

Yes, I’m deriding Yeager’s credibility. He was not involved and he has a track record for bad-mouthing NACA/NASA pilots (read his version of Neil Armstrong’s desert landing incident and compare it with the official versions – including Armstrong’s who opposed to Yeager has a track record for sticking to the truth). The Walker accident is not the only stab at NACA/NASA pilots in Yeager’s biography. He ran the USAF test pilot school at the time and had no love for civilian pilots. You arbitrarily pick Yeager out of all the pilots peripherally or directly involved in the XB-70 accident. The official view is that Walker’s F-104 somehow hit the bomber and caused the accident. There is no need for random speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONDARIZ (talk • contribs) 04:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So, put in a quote or statement that contradicts the original and back it up. The facetious "somehow hit the bomber and caused the accident" sure sounds like pilot error. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

This is not about including another private statement, but about keeping a certain academic level in Wikipedia articles. Literally everything about the XB-70 accident investigation back my claim that no blame has been put on Walker. You might very well be disinclined to delete a paragraph you have written on Wikipedia and that is somewhat understandable, but Wikipedia is not a place to propagate myth. The case is that Yeager’s personal opinion has no place in the article about Walker (or XB-70 for that matter). While it might ‘sound like’ a pilot error to you it was not reported as such by the accident investigation board. Anyway, you can’t do armchair accident investigation based on my choice of words. As GrahamSimons inform you the official report clearly states: the two aircraft collided.

Since both GrahamSimons (who indeed is an authority on the XB-70) and I have informed you that nothing backs up Yeager’s claim I hope you will do the right thing and remove the disputed text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONDARIZ (talk • contribs) 18:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You've obviously mistaken my reasoning, see text that is now placed in a note to the reader. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

Hi Bzuk, I think that’s an excellent way to solve the issue.

Removed USAF astronauts tag
I removed the USAF astronauts category tag from the article. Unlike true USAF astronauts like Pete Knight, Walker was not part of the Air Force when he earned his astronaut wings in the X-15. YLee (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just written a book on the XB-70 for Pen & Sword here in the UK called 'Valkyrie - the North American XB-70' and part of the research for this was locating and obtaining the original accident report into the AV-2 incident. I got the releasable portions of the report into the accident sent out on 22 November 2010. Parts of it are still redacted. The parts of the accident report I have is well over an inch thick that includes the FAA Chronological Summary of the flight, including transcripts of the R/T calls. From this, plus all the surviving images, I built an entire chapter. The most telling aspect is the Official Summary and I quote: ''At 0926 On 8 June 1966, an Air Force XB-70A, serial number 62-0207,and a NASA F-104N were involved in a midair collision eleven miles north of Barstow, California. The XB-70 departed Edwards AFB, CA at 0715 on a scheduled test mission to accomplish flight requirements as specified by the contractor. North American Aviation Company and the Air Force. The aircraft commander was a pilot employed by the contractor. The aircraft was scheduled to accomplish the following: (1) airspeed calibration, (2) sonic boom run, (3) flight familiarization for an Air Force crewmember, and (4) a formation flight with five other aircraft. During the accomplishment of the formation portion of the mission, the XB-70A and the F-104N collided. Both aircraft were destroyed. The XB-70 copilot and the F-104N pilot received fatal injuries."

Clearly it says that they 'collided'. In all the material I have there is a great amount of discussion regarding the circumstances, the airworthiness of the aircraft and the evidence that survived on the structures on both aircraft. However,nowhere in anything I have is there any mention of blame apportioned to anyone.

Clearly this discussion relates to what is really only Yeager's 'opinion' - which is of course he is perfectly entitled to. However, I would point out that how does one quantify what is or not 'enough experience'? The accident report records Walkers complete flying experience to the time of the accident and whilst it is not in my place to decide if he was or was not 'experienced enough' the powers that be must have thought that he was to appoint him into the position he held.(GrahamSimons (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Graham, see the above discussion, regardless of Yeager's personal opinions of other NASA pilots, he made a personal judgement about the incident and while there may be official "whitewashed" commentary as you have given, what Yeager is alluding to is a lack of experience in formation flying with dissimilar types, a very common problem with many otherwise experienced pilots. Note the very real issue of service pilots and problems in aerial refuelling where accidents are often the result. See the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin article for a similar instance of problems in a pilot trying to dock with a slow-flying mother ship. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

I do not have any problem with anyone talking or recording their own personal opinions regarding any incident as long as it is stated as such – however, I do question why you called official primary research documentation such as I have located as being an ‘official whitewashed commentary’, especially as at this point you have not provided any evidence to back up that claim. I have not been judgemental, merely reporting what I have located. Can you claim the same? I completely fail to see the relevance of making statements about service pilots and the problem with refueling, nor that of the problems with the XF-85 Goblin. Fact: the F-104N and XB-70 collided. Fact: the official accident report did not apportion blame to anyone involved. Anything departing from that is either speculation or a personal opinion from someone not directly involved to the incident in question and therefore is expressing a personal view. My whole point here is that it should at best be recorded as such – however, my own personal view is that I would question the validity of including it at all. Certainly I knew of Yeager’s ‘statement’ before my book went to press and decided not to include it as being completely unwarranted. (GrahamSimons (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Again, we are arguing over minutia, the difficulty in formation flying is a very well-known issue. Flying dissimilar aircraft also lends complexity to the situation. Whatever may have happened that day in the flash of a second or two, no one knows, and the accident investigation obviously sheds no light on possible causes. Yeager is an acknowledged aviation expert and expressed an observation, I have tailored a more neutral statement in the form of a note to the reader. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph A. Walker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423074712/http://www.adm.yar.ru/english/section.aspx?section_id=74 to http://www.adm.yar.ru/english/section.aspx?section_id=74

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph A. Walker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150117091649/http://www.astronautix.com/astros/waloseph.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astros/waloseph.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Photo Flight Authorized / Unauthorized
(Final sentence of 'Death')

Suggest this sentence be reviewed. The Tuscaloosa News article (reference 11) states that Col. Cate was relieved of duty for 'approving' the flight. Whilst further on, the article suggests that SECAF Brown wrote to SECDEF McNamara to advise that the approval decision contravened guidelines, it does appear that authorization/approval was granted, albeit not from Washington. To describe the flight as 'unauthorized' suggests that all involved were operating in defiance of their immediate leadership, when this appears not to have been the case.

Another source that describes the flight as 'authorized' is the TAKE OFF partwork published by Aerospace Publishing Ltd: 'Last Ride of The Valkyrie', TAKE OFF issue 12, 1988, p336, which states:

'Poor General Electric had done nothing wrong. The flight had been properly authorised, the photo session had gone impeccably, and GE was in no way to blame for the actions of the F-104 pilot.'

Suggested alternative sentence: "Authorization of the formation flight was later found to have been granted in contravention of established Air Force policy, leading to career ending sanctions against serveral officers (refs)."

Or words to that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.20.129 (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)