What Makes the red Arrows Such An Effective team?
 

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.

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.

.
: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?

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.

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).

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.

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

Well, I know a few that were.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dockers,

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

hval,

Feel free, mon brave. :ok:

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

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.

Prima donnas or not
 

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.

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:)

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