What Makes the red Arrows Such An Effective team? [Archive]

hval

27th Oct 2013, 11:08

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am hoping that I might be provided with advice and criticism of the article below? I have been asked to write a very brief (200 words)report on the Red Arrows. I feel that 200 words is insufficient, which is why I have written over 400. The article is looking at "teams". It is aimed at a civilian audience. All comments gratefully received, and thank you for taking the time to read the commentary.

Questions to answer:-
1/ what makes the Red Arrows special
2/ What qualities do the team have
3/ What makes the team different from similar teams

Answer
The Royal Airforce Aerobatic Team (RAFAT), also known as the "Red Arrows" have a history as being one of the best, if not the best, aerobatic display teams in the world. How have the Red Arrows, managed to achieve and maintain this deserved reputation, for so long?

The RAFAT, a team of just over one hundred persons, comprises not only the pilots but also people in other roles whose functions are of prime importance. A failing in any one of the roles can cause the Red Arrows to not be able to act as ambassadors for the UK, the MOD and for the R.A.F.

The pilots, who entertain hundreds of thousands of people each year, are the primary focus of this short report as to why the Red Arrows are a 'top flight' team.

Everyone has heard of "a team", but what is a team, and what makes a team effective. A team is a group of people who are tasked with achieving an objective or objectives. An effective team is much more. An effective team should have the following aspects:-

Clear objectives and agreed, mutual goals
An individuals objectives, needs and goals must also be understood, recognised and fulfilled else an individual is demotivated.
Effective procedures, and understanding of procedures
The right people in the right role (the right mix of skills versus attitude. The best pilot may not be correct for the team if his personality does not fit).
Openness
Honesty
Support
Trust
A desire & willingness to Cooperate
Appropriate leadership
Regular reviews
Individual development and reward
Good inter group relations
Pride
Identify with and feel ownership of the project
Professionalism
Empowered team members
The team strive for perfection. Good enough is not acceptable
Team culture
Initiative is allowed
Being willing to make personal sacrifices. For example commitment to the team includes sacrificing aspects of personal home life

Other factors that go to making the Red Arrows what they are include the fact that the Red Arrows team select new members from those pilots that are invited to attend the week of tests, interviews and socialising.

Something that all pilots have in common is going through officer selection, R.A.F. Cranwell & flying training. These make for basic similarities and an understanding plus acceptance of others who have gone through the same "initiation".

The Red Arrows all fly together and as written above socialise together.

The team practice for five months and up to three sorties a day, five days a week before the display season starts.

To join the Red Arrows 1500hrs (minimum) fast jet flying must be achieved along with at least one operational tour.

There are many aerobatic teams, Military & Civilian, who have very high standards of displays, but the main Red Arrows competitors may be considered to comprise the Blue Angels, the Snowbirds, Patrouille de France, and the Thunderbirds.

What raises the Red Arrows above the others in my eyes is the fact that they have artificial limitations placed upon them including a relatively small budget of circa £9 million per annum. Their success is demonstrated by the fact that people who have no interest in aircraft travel significant distances just to see the Red Arrows, plus their name is a globally recognised brand. Finally, the Red Arrows team demonstrate that they are able to cope with change successfully through the fact that the team change their make up each year successfully and effectively whilst maintains the same high standards in everything that they do, and at all levels.

Lou Scannon

27th Oct 2013, 12:02

I can only say what made them a great team back in the 70's. I doubt they have changed since.

1. They don't choose prima donnas for the job.

2. They have personalities that enable them to mix with all types and particularly the public.

3. They ensure that their groundcrew and support crew are all part of any social events that they get invited to.

In all...a good bunch. My only regret is that I didn't pester them for a ride when I was a Herc captain!

Perhaps the greatest compliment is that I now spend time with both Battle of Britain and Bomber Command veterans...and from what I've seen of the Reds. they would fit in famously.

Secret1

27th Oct 2013, 12:11

.
:hmm: That is a VERY biased assessment.

Surely you are going to mention some, if not all, of the failings / 'team shortcomings'.

Why not write a totally honest article? A 'balanced' report?

Archimedes

27th Oct 2013, 12:13

Why not explain what you think the shortcomings are, Secret? He is asking for advice, after all, and it may be that he's not fully cognisant of the failings you suggest, or that he doesn't see them as failings - the piece is, after all, hval's opinion (which is what, I think, he's been asked to give), rather than an independent report.

hval

27th Oct 2013, 12:23

Secret1,

Thank you for your comment. Please would you provide feedback as to where you believe I am biased and what I should have written instead? I am certainly not biased in my assessment as to what makes a successful team, nor in the attributes that the Red Arrows have.

I am looking at "teams" that may be military, civilian, MOD or otherwise. A huge number of teams are not successful as teams. The project may be successful, but often that is not due to the team being a team, just a group of people working together. The Red Arrows are most certainly not that. The red Arrows are a team, and they meet the "specifications" for being a team.

It would have been far easier to compare the Red Arrows team to unsuccessful teams (many MOD projects for example) than to compare with other successful aerobatic teams. I do believe the Red Arrows to be extremely successful despite the trials and tribulations of what is occurring within the Armed Forces at the moment and the past. If you look at the number of displays and fly pasts given by the Red Arrows each year they are certainly providing value for money (in my eyes).

hval

27th Oct 2013, 12:26

Archimedes,

Thank you for your comment. You are correct.

In this report (supposed to be 200 words) I find it impossible to comment on and mention everything. To do that I would, perhaps, require several thousand additional words.

Remember I am writing on what makes the team a success, not write about their short comings, unless it is as something that is overcome as a team.

Yes I am aware of the report that mentions shortcomings in supervision, standards and risk management. I am not in complete agreement with this document as I believe it could take away from what makes a team a team, and a successful one at that.

Mach Two

27th Oct 2013, 13:06

My focus would be on selection, training and the fact that they do something others don't do - a nine-ship.

They don't choose prima donnas for the job.

Well, I know a few that were.

hval

27th Oct 2013, 13:16

Mach Two,

Thank you for your comments.

Whilst the Red Arrows do have a nine aircraft display team, this is not what makes them so successful as a team. I did think of including that originally, but it is irrelevant to how good a team they are.

Mach Two

27th Oct 2013, 13:37

Ah, I understand, hval. More an analysis of the team than their technical performance. Indirectly, their technical excellence will affect team pride - a team that succeeds will have far fewer team issues than one that performs less well.

hval

27th Oct 2013, 13:44

Mach Two,

I like your last sentence. I do hope you won't mind if I steal it. It is something I should have included, but missed. Success engenders success.

F4TCT

27th Oct 2013, 14:10

I like the reds, and whenever I watch them, it makes me think how much I've balls'd up my life because I would love to be one of them.

Some say they are a bit boring doing the same old show year after year, yeah I can agree but having been in the briefing room at Scampton observing a full team brief before a sortie, their attitude says they want to be the best and make the best possible display.

They have been through tragedy in the last few years. I feel things need to change in the team however I'm no expert on risk management things or what's even possible to do with a hawk.

hval

27th Oct 2013, 14:21

The attitude of the team is important.

I have been looking at Belbin, Synergies, learning organisations, Japanese team models, UK team models, definitions of teams, processes, esteem, Maslow's hierarchy of needs and much more. Two hundred words really does not allow one to do justice to such a report. I suspect I have spent too much time, but could not see of any other way of doing the question justice.

Dockers

27th Oct 2013, 14:50

If you have time, try to find Creating Top Flight teams by Hilarie Owen, Kogan Page, 1997. It examines what business can learn from the Red Arrows.

hval

27th Oct 2013, 14:53

Dockers,

Thanks for the recommendation. The book is one of my references. Slightly dated, but still has much relevant information.

Mach Two

27th Oct 2013, 14:55

hval,

Feel free, mon brave. :ok:

cargosales

27th Oct 2013, 14:57

hval,

I think you're underestimating the ability of successful team members to interact with others and how that contributes to the teams overall success and popularity with the public.. Particularly when team members can combine that with the ability to make a critical evaluation of individual performance and incorporate that into rapid decision making for the benefit of all interested parties...

An example (true!!) .. in the company of a FJ display pilot I walked into the Biggin Hill Airshow crew tent which was stuffed full of the usual hangers-on. Looking around at the assembled totty, the gentleman concerned said, sotto voce, 'had her, had her, she was crap, had her, oh good she's here so that's tonight sorted! ' etc etc'.

Not long after that he joined the Reds...

CS

hval

27th Oct 2013, 15:02

cargosales,

I had recognised this factor of being able to communicate effectively with anyone. I thought I had covered it in "The right people for the right role", but rereading it I agree I have not covered the point.

Thank you for pointing that out. Unfortunately I can not include the little ditty you included. Shame.

Xercules

27th Oct 2013, 15:29

I cannot whole-heartedly agree with Lou Scannon above. I too flew some Red Arrows Support in the 70s when the team flew the Gnat from Kemble. There may have been no individual prima donnas in those days but the whole team attitude was such. I never felt really comfortable with them, if they ever deigned to mix with the Herc crew.

I was then posted away for a number of years and next flew support in the mid 80s. By now the team was at Scampton using the current Hawks. As we arrived the Manager met us and made sure we knew where the crew room was and invited us, when ready, to go and help ourselves to coffee etc. A sort while later the pilots started to arrive and each one introduced himself, we were asked if we had the WHAM and presented with one so that we knew exactly what the weekend's programme was. Then the team leader came in, introduced himself and invited us to the team briefing where he introduced us as "Red 11" and thanked us for coming. The rest of the weekend followed along these lines with the team drawing us in to be part of everything, really treating us very much as an integral part of the team. The contrast with my previous experiences was most marked.

Certainly for the 80s teams I met their ability to communicate, their openness and friendliness were all strong contributory factors in their success.

TomJoad

27th Oct 2013, 15:30

Ladies and gentlemen,

3/ What makes the team different from similar teams

Answer

What raises the Red Arrows above the others in my eyes is the fact that they have artificial limitations placed upon them including a relatively small budget of circa £9 million per annum.

Finally, the Red Arrows team demonstrate that they are able to cope with change successfully through the fact that the team change their make up each year successfully and effectively whilst maintains the same high standards in everything that they do, and at all levels.

Just some thoughts,

Why is a budget considered an "artificial limitation" ? The Reds are no different from any other team (aerobatic flying or otherwise) at having to function within the constraints of a budget - nothing artificial about that. If your argument is that the Reds operate within a comparatively small budget measured against their contemporaries then you should make that clear and perhaps justify it. I do not know if they do or not!

You talk abound how the "team" manages to cope with change brought on through frequent rotation of team members. Something in common with every unit in the RAF and civilian organisations. Perhaps then the success the Reds experience owes something not just to the qualities of the individual members, air and ground, but also to the organisation itself - ethos, aims, values, history. Maybe being part of something bigger than yourself puts fire in your belly:)

cargosales

27th Oct 2013, 15:30

hval,

Re-reading your first post ...

Actually I think you covered it rather nicely in your first bullet point 'Clear objectives and agreed, mutual goals'

:O

CS

pedant hat on though, there's no need for the comma in that sentence

hval

27th Oct 2013, 15:41

Cargo sales, am happy with grammar corrections as well. Thank you.

hval

27th Oct 2013, 15:43

Xercules,

Thanks for the feedback. I had also heard of changes in how the team communicated with others in the past.

hval

27th Oct 2013, 15:55

TomJoad,

Valid points. Looking at the budgets for each of the teams mentioned, the RAFAT have the lowest budget per aircraft and annual number of displays.

You are correct that many, if not most, organisations undergo change; unfortunately not as successfully as the Red Arrows in a large percentage of cases. It is extremely unusual to have a team as successful as the Red Arrows who have been successful for such a long period of time.

TomJoad

27th Oct 2013, 16:23

hval

As your paper stands you are just presenting statements of opinion. A similar paper could be written of the Blue Angels, Amazon, Co-Op or Tescos etc. It would strengthen your position if you are able to validate your claims. Similarly I think it would be useful if you were able to define success. Not entirely sure I would agree with you that other organisations have not enjoyed similar levels of success for similar lengths of time if not longer. Not entirely clear what the purpose of your paper is - it reads simply as a statement of opinion. It may be that is all you need it to be and if so then that's fine. However, if you are seeking to put over a position then perhaps some balance would be useful as was suggested earlier, a definition of what you mean by success and perhaps supporting evidence where relevant. Again just some thoughts.

Running_In

27th Oct 2013, 16:34

Hi Hval,

I enjoyed reading your commentary and agreed with everything you said, and as you've been brave enough to open the floor I'll offer my feedback. It is all meant to be constructive and I hope it is!

First of all, you have double your word limit, but on reading through there are quite a few opportunities to lose the odd word here & there. It quickly adds up and could even bring you in under budget.

E.g

"..also known as the "Red Arrows" have a history as being one of the best, if not the best, aerobatic display teams in the world. How have the Red Arrows, managed to achieve and maintain this deserved reputation, for so long?..."

could be come

"...RAFAT), also known as the "Red Arrows" are recognized as being one of the best aerobatic display teams in the world."

Your question are already presented so there's no need to ask one of them again. There are a few lines where you repeat points you've already made or use more words than needed. I'm truly sorry if that sounds harsh but I do think you could make it shorter with out losing any impact. Winston Churchill one started a letter with something like ''I apologise for the length of this letter, only I didn't have the time to make it shorter'' so it does take time but you will have a better piece at the end.

You don't need to mention other display teams, as it doesn't help make your point and there is scope to cut out the number of attributes you've listed by covering two with one. E.g, Honesty, Openness and Trust, Good Inter Group Relations, Team Culture, Empowerment, Ownership are all sort of in the same area and could be grouped under one of two headings.

The problem with such a long list is that it leave the reader going.. so what so what? so what? Everything you say is right on the money but have you considered perhaps grouping the attributes more closely and rather than a long list, having 4 or 5 short para graphs expanding on the most pertinent?

All meant in good faith and really it is just a tidying up thing.

All the best

RI

hval

27th Oct 2013, 16:37

TomJoad,

I totally agree with, and accept, your points. Unfortunately 200 words does not allow for such comparisons. My notes are quite a large number of pages along with references.

The purpose of the document is to demonstrate an understanding of what a team is and what makes a good team: therefore a comparison is not fully required.

I find it frustrating that I have lots of information and only two hundred words to present it.

hval

27th Oct 2013, 16:43

Running In,

I totally accept your comments and shall take them on board. Thank you. I do not mind criticism. I am able to learn, correct and improve.

Everyone's comments are much appreciated as is the time given.

t43562

27th Oct 2013, 16:49

I would guess that they have tremendous loyalty/connection with each other and co-operate rather than compete since their lives are in each other's hands frequently. i.e. they probably trust each other.

TomJoad

27th Oct 2013, 17:03

hval,

May be worth dropping the Reds a line and asking them for their own perspective on their success as a team. They are generally approachable and quite keen to help out with. Anyway, good luck with the project.

TJ

hval

27th Oct 2013, 17:05

TomJoad,

Thank you for the idea. I think I shall do so.

I still agree with your comments.

Hval

gr4techie

27th Oct 2013, 17:21

Q. What Makes the red Arrows Such An Effective team?

A. How do you measure effectiveness?

British people perceive them to be a great team because they are also British.

I'm sure a French person would perceive the Patrouille de France to be a great effective team. While an American person would perceive the Blue Angels to be a great effective team.

In all honesty are these teams any different to each other?

Hval, you wrote about two or three times that the Red Arrows are effective because they do so much socialising, why did you write this? Because they are not socialising with everyone but just a select few and socialising is not what performs a great air display.
Bayern Munich won the Champions League. They are an effective football team not because they did any socialising but because they played better football than every other team in the competition.

TomJoad

27th Oct 2013, 17:30

In fairness gr4 I don't think hval hasn't recognised that. He is writing about what makes a successful team and by any measure the Reds are a successful team.

Mach Two

27th Oct 2013, 17:34

Xercules,

An unfortunate post of yours there. Given that they are a very important part of the RAF PR machine, such as it is, I'm not sure what impression your words might give to readers here in a public forum. I'm rather sorry you thought fit to post that.

Yes, there are prima donnas in all sorts of places, but to smear the whole team with that might be a bit incautious.

hval

27th Oct 2013, 18:44

Gr4techie,

TomJoad is correct. Now I apologise for the following.

The Red Arrows main purpose is as ambassadors, not as an aerobatic team. I suspect if the red Arrows could carry out a burlesque fan dance which provided the same effects then UK government would be more than happy.

The Red Arrows socialise in a number of different ways, and for different reasons:-

As a team - all included
Outside of work hours
In the mess
At functions (might be in a mess or elsewhere)
At air shows, with the public and with people outside of the team

All these are indicative of a good team. The results of the socialising being more important than the socialising itself. Indications are that the socialising works.

How do you measure how effective a team is? There are a long list of documents that tell you how to measure effectiveness. Simplistically, what is the reputation of the Red Arrows with the public, their peers inside the R.A.F. and within other military organisations? The fact that they continue to exist is also an indication of their success. Look at the corps of Royal Signals display team, the White helmets. Their costs, other than salaries are about £100,00 per annum. Yet they are not as famous as the red Arrows. Why? Is their role different. Yes it is. The White Helmets are more likely to be abolished than the Red Arrows.

Members of football teams also socialise. Sometimes not quite so successfully, as is the case with some footballers who have ended up in court from accusations of GBH to rape.

As for the Patrouille de France and the Blue Angels, they also have similar effective functions as the red Arrows. I could just as well written that these teams area also effective ambassadors for their respective military forces.

Here is a question for people though, and one I do not know the answer to. The Red Arrows have been used by business to enhance their image, for example British Airways with Concord and more recently with the A380. Then there was the photo shoot with the QE II. Numerous other examples exist. Have these other military display teams been used in a similar fashion? Is it a good or bad idea to be associated with certain organisations as well?

nimbev

27th Oct 2013, 20:32

The Red Arrows have been used by business to enhance their image, for example British Airways with Concord and more recently with the A380. Then there was the photo shoot with the QE II. Numerous other examples exist. Have these other military display teams been used in a similar fashion? Is it a good or bad idea to be associated with certain organisations as well? hval

I cannot see what this has to do with team performance. If you are trying to stick within 200 words, opening up the discussion to cover such topics will weaken your key arguments.

airsound

27th Oct 2013, 20:49

hval, I've been lucky enough to be associated with the Reds - or at least with their PR - since the 1980s. I agree that there may have been one or two prima donnas in the team in the past, but my experience of them nowadays is that they are eminently approachable, for everyone - security and tight schedules allowing.

I suggest that one factor in their cohesion as a team is their selection process. I can't think of many teams where potential new members are socially, professionally and personally vetted by the current team. I think I'm right in saying that that tends to weed out prima donnas.

I definitely think you should contact them. I don't suppose you'll have a problem doing that, but pm me if you want.

airsound

hval

27th Oct 2013, 21:06

Airsound,

If you were at Scampton did you know the padre whose name was the same as a famous news reader? A gentleman with a wonderful wife as well.

As for contacting the red Arrows I guess the email address below is the best one.

[email protected]

Email shall be written tomorrow night.

Cheers,

Hval.

nimbev

27th Oct 2013, 21:07

I agree with Xercules' sentiments at #18. In some areas there was a degree of anti Red feeling in the early70's. At a time of cost cutting and killing off sacred cows questions were being asked about the relevance and affordability of a display team. I suggest that this was partly overcome by a charm offensive as illustrated by Xercules' comments re a change in attitude between the 70's and 80's. This leads to a key requirement of a successful team in that they must have good working relationships with external teams. This is, I think, more important than 'socialising'.

gr4techie

27th Oct 2013, 21:54

Hval, what are you getting at? Are you saying the Red Arrows are a good team because they socialise a lot?

You miss my point that Bayern Munich is an effective team because that team won the Champions League. I'm guessing they won because of talent and athletic fitness and the amount of socialising they did, had no influence on how effective they were.

Because George Best and Gazza liked to socialise doesn't mean every football player does. From what I have read serious athletes out there hardly socialise as they are so focused on their fitness and training. Also do you know there's a difference between accusation and guilty, they are too completely different things. One does not mean the other.

TomJoad

27th Oct 2013, 22:11

gr4

I think he has made it pretty clear that he considers the ability to socialize as a team is an important part of the mix for success. He is not saying that it is the singular determinant for success. You may also wish to consider that in asking for an open critique of his paper he is not necessarily asking you to agree with what he has written - it is his thoughts on the subject.

hval,

If you do manage to contact the Reds then you may want to ask them their opinion on the ability of team members to integrate socially within the team at formal and informal settings. I suspect that it will figure highly - socializing is all about communication, learning about your oppo and a good bit of give and take. It is by no coincidence that it formed a large part of the officer selection and training process at RAFC Cranwell. If a team is not cohesive then success will be a difficult thing to attain. Socializing helps to build cohesiveness.

hval

27th Oct 2013, 22:14

Gr4techie,

Socialising/ interacting with the client, within the team, with the public etc are all aspects that go towards a good team. There are many other factors. Socialising is just one of them. Socialising does not have to mean going to cocktail parties either.

One reason pilots are selected is due to their ability to interact well with the rest of the team and with the public etc. The one week test period for potential pilot team members has aspects that look at a persons social abilities.

Interaction between people is an extremely important facet of what makes a team effective. Skills are important as well; but it can be better to take alright people at a job rather than a prima donna. The reason being that the alright person can interact a lot more effectively with a team.

Teams are fascinating. People call a group of people a team when in fact they may not be. What if one member of that team is working to his own ends? Is he really a member of a team? I would say not. That is not a team. A team is much more than that. A real team is something special, something that is more than a sum of its parts.

There are many, many aspects that go to make up a good team. Look up Belbin and have a read.

Gr4techie, just because a soccer team wins a game, a cup etc. does not make them a team in the way that I mean a team. A soccer team may win because the other soccer team is not as good as them. That does not make them a team in the way I mean, nor the way business organisations should look at teams. Unfortunately too many organisations look at teams in the same way that you appear to.

hval

27th Oct 2013, 22:24

TomJoad,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

I totally agree that one of the purposes of the OASC is to test a persons ability to communicate and to see how well they can quickly work as part of a team. I also understand that aspects of R.A.F. Cranwell are to enhance the communication and interaction abilities of officer cadets.

Genstabler

27th Oct 2013, 22:35

The main purpose of RAFAT is to generate positive PR in a number of areas and for the benefit of a number of UK plc organisations, not just the RAF. Socialising successfully is therefore a key factor in their achieving that purpose.
They devote a lot of time and effort meeting and charming the general public who attend the air shows at which they display. They also put resources into Facebook and Twitter, which gives them personal access to the public. This contributes greatly to the public esteem which they clearly enjoy.
A sizeable chunk of their annual costs is provided by sponsorship and the sponsors would not be impressed by standoffish prima donnas. They therefore devote much time and the same effort to achieve perfection in that area as they do in their flying operations.
And they do indeed have to work around funding limitations, especially in the provision of spares and role specific equipment. For example smoke pods.
And to compare their activities with a football team leaves me speechless!

hval

27th Oct 2013, 22:36

Nimbev,

I think that people are misunderstanding what Is meant by the word "socialising". Perhaps I should change that word to human interaction.

Genstabler

27th Oct 2013, 22:41

No, stick to socialising. One word and it accurately describes that aspect of their duties.

hval

27th Oct 2013, 22:52

Genstabler,

Phew! I thought I was being thick in not being able to get my point across. I still think I am. I must think how to rewrite what I gave written to emphasise the "ambassadorial" role and separate it from the "primate interaction" role as Desmond Morris might call it.

TomJoad

27th Oct 2013, 22:57

hval,

Human interaction is probably more accurate but for most parts I am happy with what you mean by socializing. I think your comments on differentiating what constitutes a team are interesting. And yes I guess I would agree not all teams are equal. I suspect that in what I would call "critical success environments" human interactions are of primary importance. I would imagine that during the Apollo era, NASA would have devoted a hell of a lot of attention to ensuring that the crew operated as a cohesive unit with each member being able to second guess the actions and response of their counterparts. I suspect similar selection criterion would be foremost in other critical success fields such as: bomb disposal, deep sea diving, armed response units, special forces. I suspect also that the same would be at play in other non military environments such as medical surgical teams. But I would go back to my thoughts on NASA. I know that they have conducted a lot of research into human interactions with a view to how they would impact on the sucess of a deep space mission to say Mars. Can you imagine the stress of being locked up in a can for 3 months with sombody who drives you nuts!

hval

27th Oct 2013, 23:08

TomJoad,

You are totally and utterly correct in your last comments (except for EOD, where the team interactions are slightly atypical). Iraq and Afghanistan have raised the level of requirements to understand human interactions for all types of teams, right from section and platoon levels, all the way up the chain.

Another example of poor teams are many of the high profile programmes of recent history, e.g. MRA4. Look at how involvement of officers in projects has/ is being changed.

As for sharing a space with someone for long periods of time (not Mars trips lengths) look at submariners.

Funnily enough, the interaction of large teams does not have to be the same as with small teams.

TomJoad

27th Oct 2013, 23:23

hval,

Be interested to hear more on your thoughts on EOD teams. Interestingly, it's the Eng Tech Weapons trade from my own experience that formed the closest team bonds of all - as for their ability to socialise, well that is another thread altogether.:ok:

PS as for atypical, well that's the best description of the armament trade I could use. God bless them all, gentlemen and ladies, salt of the Earth.

Genstabler

27th Oct 2013, 23:27

When I typed in "Twitter" it came out in my post as Pprune! I smell a rat!

TomJoad

27th Oct 2013, 23:31

When I typed in "Twitter" it came out in my post as Pprune! I smell a rat!

Yep it does that for some bizzare reason.

Party Animal

28th Oct 2013, 09:52

hval,

Just my 3 penn'orth purely to make you think.

Bearing in mind the 200 word limitation, I would leave out the 3 sub questions. Your overall goal is to impart a view on 'what makes the Red Arrows such an effective team'. You then give a very good series of reasons to answer the question. Breaking down the detail into 3 specific sub questions is a good idea but not when you are word limited.

'What makes the Red Arrows special' and 'What qualities do the team have' can really be combined to answer your original point.

'What makes the team different from similar teams' should be omitted because this would require too much detail and too many words in the time available. I would leave comparisons with the other famous teams out of your argument altogether as they all see themselves as special and the best and in all probability, they probably all share the same qualities.

Over to you though for the final article.

Genstabler

28th Oct 2013, 13:52

What Makes the Red Arrows such an effective team?
Clear objectives and the experience, professional judgement, dedication and leadership of Red1.

Lonewolf_50

28th Oct 2013, 15:34

There may have been no individual prima donnas in those days but the whole team attitude was such. I never felt really comfortable with them, if they ever deigned to mix with the Herc crew.
Any elite or specially and competitively selected team will have an esprit de corps and pride in their unit. It is human nature.

The latter anecdote you shared reminds me of the interaction I had with the Blue Angels during my Navy career. While good pilots, what really struck me about those gents was that they were "people" people of the best sort.

For an answer of less than 200 words for our OP:

What Makes the red Arrows Such An Effective team?
Practice, Practice, Practice! :}

4ROCK

28th Oct 2013, 15:39

Hval

You have made a fundamental but very important mistake in your list of attributes your team members should have.......

......you state 'his personality' when referring to the pilots.

If I'm not mistaken there was a 'token' female member for a short time?!

I think it important to note that the selection of the crews pushes all the right 'equality' buttons - very important when the Red Arrows are primarily a PR tool!

hval

28th Oct 2013, 18:21

All,

Thank you for your comments. They are very much appreciated.

4ROCK, you are totally correct that was a female pilot. I shall modify my points shortly.

Now to rework my efforts.

hval

28th Oct 2013, 18:58

I am submitting more than 200 words with the comment that I would be unable to do the questions justice with so few words. I would end up with no facts and end up using flowery words. Answer that I intend to request the Red Arrows team to comment on below.

---------
The Royal Airforce Aerobatic Team (RAFAT), also known as the "Red Arrows" are recognized as being one of the best aerobatic display teams in the world.

The RAFAT, a team of approximately one hundred persons, comprises pilots and other roles whose functions are of prime importance. A failing in any one of the roles can cause the Red Arrows to not be able to act as ambassadors for the UK, the MOD and for the R.A.F.

The pilots, who entertain hundreds of thousands of people each year, are the primary focus of this synopsis.

A team comprises a number of persons tasked with achieving objective/s. An "effective" team is much more than the sum of parts and should include excellent people skills, procedural skills, management excellence : -

Clear objectives and agreed mutual goals
An individuals objectives, needs and goals must also be understood, recognised and fulfilled.
Effective procedures, and understanding of procedures
Regular reviews
The right people in the right role (the right mix of skills versus attitude. E.g. The best pilot may not be correct for the team if their personality does not fit).
Openness, Pride, reliability, honesty & trust
A desire & willingness to be flexible to cooperate, listen, participate & support
Appropriate leadership
Good inter/ extra group relations
Effectively interact with others, at all levels, which contributes to the teams overall success and popularity, whether this be at air shows, dinner occasions, within the team, or mess functions
Identify with and feel ownership of the project
Professionalism
Empowered team members
The team must strive for perfection. Good enough is not acceptable
Team culture
Initiative is allowed
Being committed & willing to make personal sacrifices. For example commitment to the team includes a reduced personal home life
Practice for five months, fly up to three sorties a day, five days a week prior to display season commencement

Other factors that go to making the Red Arrows what they are include the fact that the Red Arrows team select new members from those pilots that are invited to attend the week of tests, interviews and socialising.

All pilots have a basic commonality in going through officer selection, R.A.F. Cranwell & flying training. These make understanding & acceptance of others much easier.

Pilots in the Red Arrows team must have 1500hrs (minimum) fast jet flying along with at least one operational tour.

What raises the Red Arrows above the others in my eyes is many fold. With a relatively small budget of circa £9 million per annum the costs are are lower than the other military teams when number of aircraft and number of displays per annum are taken in to account. Their success is demonstrated by the number of people travelling significant distances just to see the Red Arrows, often on a repeat basis; plus their name is a globally recognised brand. Finally, the Red Arrows team demonstrate that they are able to cope with change successfully through the fact that the annual team changes are successful and effective.
-----------

Lonewolf_50

28th Oct 2013, 20:26

hval:

I sent you a PM.
Some suggestions are enclosed in tightening the prose.
200 words is a fairly brief synopsis.

Best wishes.

LW_50

Easy Street

28th Oct 2013, 20:59

I might have missed what the purpose of this mini-essay is, but I would strongly advise against breaking the word limit, and especially advise against drawing attention to the fact that you've broken the word limit by including a note setting out your excuse! Assuming this is being marked in some academic context, the ability to identify a key aspect of the question and answer it succinctly is one of the skills typically examined in these type of questions; they tend not to care a hoot about the particular topic. Assessors are not looking to be wowed by RAFAT and their amazing teamwork; they are looking to be wowed by your insight, clarity and (in the case of 200-word submissions) brevity. How do you think historians distil decades or even centuries into a few hundred pages? Academic establishments of my acquaintance have strict policies such as automatically scoring zero for breaking the word limit.

On the other hand, if it's for publication in a magazine or newsletter, and the word limit has been set by the editor, prepare to have your over-length submission edited down - and you can guarantee that they'll edit out the bit you were most proud of! Best to come in on-length and have it published the way you intended.