User Survey
Compiled by Nigel Horton from NH Bird Management Limited

Summary

The subjective results of a survey of users of Scarecrow products, for bird control on aerodromes, are presented in this document. The Survey indicates that, when used in the correct manner by experienced personnel, bird distress calls broadcast through Scarecrow equipment merit their place as part of an Integrated Bird Management System.

What Survey?

A previous Scarecrow Newsletter included a simple Questionnaire. In this, Scarecrow Bio-Acoustic Systems asked the end users of their equipment to tick a few boxes and return the completed Survey to Scarecrow.

The Survey was designed for easy completion with the aim of answering one question:

How effective were bird distress calls broadcast through Scarecrow equipment?

Surely, this was common knowledge; a manufacturer must know how their product is working. So why the necessity to ask the user? Very true, but when a system has been in use for a long time, the old adage of 'no news is good news' is not sufficient.

When things are working as expected they rarely get a mention. Therefore, the very best people to ask about its efficiency are those who use it daily. It also allows those same people to make any suggestions for practical improvements to the equipment as supplied.

The scientists had tested distress calls over several decades and would, no doubt, continue to do so. However, a manufacturer of distress call broadcast equipment needs to know that the equipment is practical for the required task.

The concept that any tool is only as good as the person handling it is still valid. However, the manufacturer's responsibility is to provide the operator with efficient and user-friendly equipment.

What was the response?

By market research standards the response from UK aerodromes was much better than average. Thirty-seven survey forms were returned, representing about half of the aerodromes known to be using Scarecrow equipment. Invariably, survey forms are unwelcome but this one was specialised, was not difficult to complete; reminders were issued and these followed up by fax and telephone.

This Survey was subjective and sought only to find very basic information, and was not so dependent on a large sample size.

It is easy to consider that any survey from a manufacturer can only be of benefit to the manufacturer. This is not denied but we each have a duty of care and improvements to any bird control tool can only be of benefit to flight safety.

Interestingly, completed Survey forms can provide more information than originally envisaged. They may, for example, provide a reflection of the bird control organisation at an aerodrome and, perhaps this Survey was identified as such by some of those that did not return the form.