(Incorrect) observation of aircraft height

[Weekend Warrior]

Today I went flying. When I returned home from the airport I was getting close to home and I was just pulling onto my street (but still a mile or two away from home), I saw a Piper low-wing dive down towards my home/area ahead. I say "home/area" as opposed to "home" because I live out in the sticks, my home is on acreage, I'm surrounded by several hundred acres of farmland and woods, and I wasn't near my house yet, so it would be hard for me to say exactly what the pilot was flying over. Within a minute, I could see the plane flying over my home/area again, and I thought, "Wow, is he low!"
I then remembered that I had my iPad w/foreflight and my Stratus sitting there on the passenger seat. So I pulled to the side of the road, and fired them both up. He came by a third time and I was shocked to see that the plane was over 2000 feet AGL. If I had guessed, I would have said 300 or 400 feet, maybe 500 feet MAX! I frequently attend fly-ins, and I've been to many (and participated) in those that have the "flour bomb" competition at 500 feet, so I've seen my share of aircraft at this altitude. Felt weird that I guessed so wrong. I even later put his N number in Flight Aware, thinking maybe he climbed by the time I got the Stratus fired up, but no, he was 2000-2200 feet AGL when I saw him. I think part of the allusion was the fact that he was a mile or two distant on the horizon when I saw him, and the area is very hilly.
What concerns me, is that I assumed this guy was doing some low-level buzzing, and then with ADSB could see he wasn't (not that'd I care if he was, I like a show ), but the general public might think so as well. Of course, that same ADSB was telling me he wasn't at 500 feet, so then there's that for proof I guess, if someone was to complain. Just really threw me that I was so wrong at my estimation.

 

[Tantalum]

This is why eye witness testimony needs to taken with a hefty grain of salt!

 

[ateamer]

A friend where we used to live told me about a plane - described it clearly, plus the time of day - that had flown a few orbits around his street "so low it almost hit the trees". It happened that I was the passenger in that plane. We were at 1,020' AGL.

A current neighbor at our airpark (one who's never been an aviator) complained about planes flying over at treetop level. They were at 500, just like always. It's even published in our pilot info that they cross at 500, and they always have been.

Things like that make me put almost zero stock in statements by non-fliers about aviation matters.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[LongRoadBob]

I wonder if there is some way to judge it more accurately, some technique.
I know with felling trees, I often use the trick of (on level ground) getting to where my arm at a 45 deg angle points at the treetop, which then means the top will end up right where I’m standing.

But trees don’t generally fly, and stay put through my measuring. It’s well known that we aren’t good at judging such things by sight because there is nothing to judge against.

So if you have some hills or treetops you know the distance to you might get a better estimate if you can judge when the plane is over them, but that is kinda hard too.

Perceived size of the airplane, and then angle might get one nearer, I don’t know.

 

[Half Fast]

I know I’m terrible at judging a plane’s height AGL, as evidenced by the creases in my forehead from walking into high-wings.

 

[Zeldman]

This is low level....

(language)

But still makes me laugh...

 

[Shawn]

Eyewitness accounts are known not to be accurate is the law enforcement community...people’s memories are skewed by both perception and emotional bias as they are processing the information.

I was involved in a very significant incident at a public event recently and many portions of what quite a few first hand witnesses reported personally seeing was NOT what actually happened.

While they believe what they saw...unfortunately how the human brian processes information is not as accurate as one would hope and more dangerously has the ability to fill in the gaps with inaccurate assumptions

 

[ateamer]

Eyewitness accounts are known not to be accurate is the law enforcement community..,people’s memories are skewed by both perception and emotional bias as they are processing the information.

I was involved in a very significant incident at a public event recently and many portions of what quite a few first hand witnesses reported personally seeing was NOT what actually happened.

While they believe what they saw...unfortunately how the human brian processes information is not as accurate as one would hope and more dangerously has the ability to fill in the gaps with inaccurate assumptions

I interviewed thousands of witnesses during my LE career. People give widely varying accounts of seeing the same thing because their memory gets clouded by emotion, bias, and simply forgetting critical details because they weren’t prepared to remember what they saw. Experienced officers who get good training and make the effort to be excellent interviewers are able to get much more from witnesses, both in accuracy and volume.

Joe Friday was a terrible interviewer with his curt “just the facts, ma’am” approach. A good witness interview for a simple straight-up crime or traffic accident can take 15-20 minutes or more - this is for something easy and basic. Lots of irrelevant info will come forth, but there are some golden nuggets in there that the uptight (or lazy, or poorly-trained) guys won’t ever dig up.

Few witnesses outright lied, but many were so far off the mark with their memories that I’d have to see for myself if they said the sky was blue.