>>2434335>>2434604It's easier to visualize a 4'5 dwarf against a 7'5 high elf than to visualize miles of vertical relief IMO, most people can't fathom how huge mountains can be out west. It's not terribly uncommon for prop planes to accidentally fly straight into mountains every few years. Also the FAA criteria is not based upon prominence, but vertical relief. Vertical relief (termed "terrain differential" in the pic) is total relief between any two designated points given a specific distance and can be much higher technical prominence which is based upon a mountains' key col.
As an example Arizona's most prominent mountain has 6,320' of technical prominence, but has 7,820' of vertical relief within 11 miles of the peak. Additionally, AZ by itself has at least 4 other features with 6k+ ft of relief within the same distance (GC North Rim to CO river, San Francisco peaks, Mt Lemmon, Mica Mt) , several dozen others with over 5.28k ft relief, and hundreds with 3.28k ft of relief within the same distance. And AZ is only 10th of 13 in vertical relief for the west. While AK is in its own class, Mt St Elias rises 18,008' within 11 miles of sea level. Also the statistical conversion is a simple formula.
8750 (feet)/69 (inches) - 11250/?
Cross multiply and divide by the remaining number. 11250x69 / 8750 = 88.714 (inches) or 7'4.7
