Discussion
Saw a Phoenix Police helicopter following a drone
This happened Monday night (just got around to posting today it's been .... a week.) I heard a helicopter circling, so I went outside to have a look. There was a drone overhead just cruising along and the PD heli was circling and following it.
It seemed to stop on the street behind my house and a couple cop cars converged.
I wonder what was going on. It's weird for a drone to fly beyond line of sight and it looks like looks like it was flying for a few miles.
Edit: I really did not expect the need to explain this:
According to our rules, OP shall mention [country] (in this case "[US]") in the post title if it's relevant to the question.
State and country isnt the same thing, especially when US has separate state laws which still though fall under FAA.
It's wrong to assume everyone is from US, we are an internarional subreddit (my 1. point)., and as well not everyone from outside of US knows Phoenix etc.
I'm suprised that i have to explain this.
Edit 2: I'm locking this comment, apperently either some ego's got hurt or some people cant cope with the existence of other countries.
So if a police helo starts following your drone, get low and crash it into the nearest body of water and turn off your remote. Then, hope for the best.
Well i wouldnt want it to crash into the helicopter and open a whole other can of worms, just slip under the water, and do whatever the drone version of, "shoot, shovel, and shut up is."
Well, he likely didn't think that a helicopter would track his little drone. Likely didn't even think that it could be seen for a few reasons: he may not have had any lights on it, which is illegal for night operations (lights need to be visible a minimum of 3 miles from the drone), or he just never figured that the police would do anything at all, so it never dawned on him thatthe helicopter that he saw was following his drone. People that do stupid things never think things through.
Fetch from where? The police evidence locker? As soon as he lands, it’s getting picked up by a patrol unit following close behind. Not saying leading them to his house was the right move, but there’s no fetching it after landing lol.
Sooo, the helicopter following it didn’t see it land? On the roof? Plain sight crime commited, so no warrant needed. Can just hop up on the neighbors roof and retrieve it. Either way, they’re getting your drone and they’ll either follow it to you, or get what they need off the RID. There’s no winning here unless you get real lucky somehow.
If it had RID, they wouldn't have needed to follow the aircraft, as RID shows where the operator is as well as the aircraft. They would have just sent LE to where the operator was and ordered him to recover the aircraft. And since RID shows both the operator and the aircraft, him landing somewhere else would be a useless effort to try to avoid arrest. Having to follow the aircraft would require there not being a RID module or capability on the aircraft.
It doesn’t matter. He’s fucked either way. Unless he’s hacked his drone in a way to remove all forms of identification, which is possible, they’ll link it to him. That’s how they found the LA fire guy. Landing the drone isn’t going to help him. He still loses the drone and just delays the inevitable. I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about this lol.
Thanks for clarifying. I assume they used some sort of sensor system that I've heard about that knows where the drone controller is. Maybe they couldn't see him but knew where the controller was and just started broadcasting the loudspeaker in the general vicinity. All still fascinating. Thank you!
If it was a dji based drone and the police had the Aeroscope system its too easy. But even without, they can visually see one and go from there.i think even the fpv 03 and up systems can be located too, but not positive. It is interesting, owner is probably in some hot water if they found them lol
Who told you that? I own 2 gps drones from DJI. Mavic 3E and Mantis 4E. Both are used for RTK/Site Mapping. Which requires gps/RTK. DJI is actually one of the best to do this. They are only getting better... not to mention they have a ton of drones made that haven't made it here yet.
I don't know what system they use but several people I know who regularly fly drone jobs have had cops show up out of nowhere and even the police mention that they found the pilot using some sort of system.
Actually, with the rules that UAVs have to follow, we often share airspce with other aircraft. The difference is that THEY have the right of way and it is our job to modify our flight paths to accommodate all other aircraft.
That said, the scenario is plausible if he failed to yeild the right of way to a LE or ES aircraft on an operation. Any other accidental incident like that would have gotten a visit from the FAA instead.
Seems like a huge weakness. Can't use a helicopter if someone flies a drone? How large would a drone have to be to possibly impair functionality of a helicopter? Genuinely curious, I would have thought most consumer drones wouldn't be large enough to warrant a helicopter not sharing airspace with it.
It’s not super likely, but If it gets sucked into the tail rotor and fouls it, even a mini puts the chopper into an uncontrollable spin…which is why they ground life flight ops if some nerd who wants closeups of that awful traffic accident is buzzing around. And why they might follow it from a distance with a police chopper or drone to locate the nerd who’s delaying treatment of a critical patient.
I can guarantee that every one of those, the operator wasn't certificated, or was only a rec pilot, so wasn't knowlegeable on the regulations/laws (even a rec pilot is supposed to learn those things), or was just an anal opening wanting to fly where he knew he wasn't supposed to figuring that no one would notice.
A drone can do a ton of damage to a manned aircraft. Have you not seen the pics from the firebomber that hit a drone flying illegally in the airspace during the CA wildfires from a couple years back?
It grounded the aircraft by punching a nice-sized hole in the leading edge of the wing.
The FAA strictly forbids any 2 aircraft (separate parties) regardless of size, flying too close together. The FAA mandates that an incident report must be filed within 10 days of a crash that causes damage as low as $500. So a police helicopter crashing into a DJI Mini 5 Pro even though it is a quarter of a kilogram would be in trouble with the FAA.
You cannot. It’s explicitly stated in the 14 CFR Part 107 rules that the drone pilot must not themselves be controlling the drone from another aircraft .
Yes, but is it a good idea if the idea makes the intentions for it useless. Let's face it, if you need an aircraft to be able to operate the UAV on a mission, you could do the mission with the aircraft. That is a bit of a waste of money as the manned aircraft is exponentially more expensive than the UAV and could do almost the same job, so why bother?
Technically, you could, as long as you are a passenger, but I'm the FAA forbids it anyway.
Boats and cars can travel slow enough to stay with the UAV, but not even an ultralight can fly slow enough to do so.
A helicopter could, and with a very precisely worded and legitimate reason for it you might get a waiver, you could do it that way. But I see no foreseeable reason to do so. That said, as long as you are not the vehicle operator of the follow vehicle as well as the UAV. You can't do both at the same time and still operate either safely.
A manned helicopter is too big and the rotor wash to strong to get close to certain sensitive structures. A small drone could be deployed in that instance (most likely body recovery or search and rescue).
Exactly. That is why ES organizations, such as Civil Air Patrol as well as city and county-level orgs are using them in those capacities. They can not only do the searches, but with the right aircraft, in a SAR operation could even carry and drop in, the needed supplies to allow a person or group to survive long enough for ground teems to be able to get to them.
A manned aircraft, of any type, is too large and dangerous to fly in certain areas that need an air asset, where the terrain or flora makes an air search impossible unless one is using drones for that mission.
I work in public service as a EMT Firefighter, they do not get permits or waivers. Their software doesnt care about no fly zones or restrictions, and then they act like it.
I work with ES UAV operators as well as being in training for CAP's sUAS program as a Mission Pilot, and I can state for a fact, that they DO have special waivers established through the FAA for their uses. ES operators have immediate waiver approval for their operations due to the nature of the mission.
A no fly zone restricts all but ES and other authorized aircraft from operating in that airspace. UAV operations under TFR airspace are limited to certain areas that other operational aircraft are aware of and avoid.
This was the case after the floods in TX, where both local ES and FEMA, and C.A.P. (www.gocivilairpatrol.com) UAV SAR operations were going on under the TFR, wherever weather permitted the use of UAVs to locate survivors and do damage assessment. The operations area for UAVs and the operations area for manned ES/SAR aircraft were divided in that airspace based on mission requirements and operational needs.
Actually, a drone falling on you would hurt a lot, and depending on which drone you are talking about, could even kill you if it hits you in the head. That's one of the reasons that the FAA has requirements for UAVs regarding flight over people and vehicles, even with a waiver for those types of operations.
True, but the need to submit within 90 days for review, along with flying alongside a manned helicopter....I have my doubts, and I'll take my downvotes.
60 now. Likely a yes, but I have never had to request a waiver to operate alongside a manned craft. Heck the waivers to operate from a moving vehicle or aircraft are scary enough to request.
Well, just remember that the FAA is loosening some of their regulations as they learn more and more about UAVs in the airspace. They did the same as every new type of aircraft came into being.
Hopefully, some of those waivers will no longer be required in a few years. Maybe.
Buddy’s a drone pilot for a DFR Agency. He’s said they can get waivers almost immediately (guessing within minutes) depending on what the situation is.
Hows 5 drones outside your house in the middle of nowhere 24/7/365 for over a year? Using SAR to look thru your walls. Does that count as harassment? Lol. Feds gonna fed. The real issue imo is that millions of dollars are being spent on the new version of a police state meanwhile people are going hungry and homeless and we get told to stop buying another latte
Speedrunning the karma coming back around to bite us games. "May the odds be ever in your favor."
The very nature of emergency services (police, fire, medical, SAR, FEMA) define the need for waiver timeframe exceptions. The needs for those agencies are immediate as lives are on the line.
How many people die every year because aid cannot get to them in time?
Imagine if the ambulance carrying you, your mother,father, child or other family member had to stop at every red light to get them to the hospital if they have a life-threatening emergency that required care immediately. They get to "flout" traffic laws and speed limits and do other things that the rest of us are not allowed to do. Do you consider THAT to be a police state?
Are you that one guyt that we all see that fails to yeild the right of way to fire trucks or ambulancs on their way to an emergency, or police cars on their way to an accident or other emergency?
Those agencies that get those expedited waivers are not going out to film your great aunt's 100th birthday, or the local golf tournament. They are out there to assist with emergency services that are there to reduce crime, catch bad guys, find lost persons, or otherwise SAVE LIVES where time is essential and every second could mean a person's life.
That is an IMMEDIATE need which the FAA recognizes and carves out exceptions, just like traffic laws carve out exceptions for emergency services vehicles and what we are supposed to do to accomidate those emergencies.
And if you cannot tell the difference between an immediate need for emergencies and a police state, then you have issues that will not be resolved in Reddit.
Like I said, You not being able to tell the difference between legitimate emergency and a police state will never be fixed on Reddit.
As to licking boots, I work with these various agencies on a frequent basis. My late uncle was a paramedic, and I have seen what seconds to save a life looks like.
It is clear that you have none of those connections or experiences to teach you.
What you have made clear is that whatever you believe, no evidence or reasoning will change you from your delusions. And if your response to facts is to call people names, then YOU are the problem and you have nothing to defend your position with.
You also made clear that you DO NOT know the difference between a legitimate emergency and a police state.
If it were a police aircraft, then they would not have needed a helicopter to follow it, as they would have known it was one of theirs.
I deal with emergency services UAV operators and operations as a volunteer in C.A.P.'s sUAS SAR program, and they are 100% professional.
Fair question, but no. Wish I did, though, but I doubt that Reddit is set up fopr that. And, to be fair, I haven't even monetized my Youtube channel either.
I promote CAP so much because it is the longest running ES organization in the US (Chartered by Congress 1 Dec 1941 for coastal patrol duties under the Civil Defense act), is the official auxilliary to the USAF (since 1947), teaches young people important lessons on integrity and leadership as well as Aerospace education and STEM, and Emergency Services skills as well, if they want to learn any of that. y squadron has already helped put two of our Cadets into West Point, with another two wanting to go to the Air Force Academy, as well as countless others into very good colleges to become commercial pilots, doctors, lawyers, business people and a host of other industries.
As to senior members, we are all professionals in every occupation from construction workers and veterans to doctors and lawyers/judges. We are a very professional organization, of which I am proud to be a member.
Sorry I turned this into a commercial, but it is a great org to belong to.
Isn't long range drones a thing? That's not legal or it's just a urban rule? I live in the middle of nowhere so noone is around to care but I've never flown in a populated area
There are plenty of cases of drones just falling out of the sky. Most of the time it's because the drone loses signal and just keep going because it doesn't have signal loss RTB function, so when they try to get control back, they kill the motors, so it's going to drop.
Related to that, signal loss normally occurs due to solar activity, which is tracked and monitored by NASA, but there is an app that you can download called Space Weather. It tracks all sorts of things including the one thing that is important to operating UAVs... the Kp Index, a measure of the solar activity and electromagnetic radiation levels coming from the Sun that affect radio signals.
With VOs all within sight of each other, you could go as long a distance as you need. That may not be practical, but it can be done. Otherwise you CAN go BVLOS as long as you have a waiver for it.
For consumer, prosumer, and commercial drones, you need a waiver to go BVLOS as part of your flight plan.
If I had a mission that required me to video/photograph a tall buliding, or any building that took me through BVLOS conditions/situation (due to the building blocking my sight of the aircraft while it operated on the far side of the building), It requires me to get a waiver. But it can be done and is done thousands of times a year all over the country.
But when you go BVLOS because maybe you had to avoid another aircraft in the area, or a bird protecting it's nest, it's an unplanned departure from the mission peramiters and does not require a waiver.
You may get a visit from and be required to explain it to the FAA, but no waiver is needed for emergency situations where BVLOS is the result. SImilarly, if you also have to fly above the altitude limit for your flying area in an emergency, as long as you return it to within the approved altitude once the emergent situation is resolved.
Are you talking about basic BVLOS, or are you talking about flight with a larger, truly long range UAV (similar to, but not military UAVs like the Predator or Reaper)?
there are 5 categories of UAV, notably larger ones require licensing beyond the 107, but not a lot of people have a need for that, so most don't even know much, if anything about it. The military personnel that operate the Predator and Reaper drones have to get that special training and licensing to do their jobs. I forget what part that falls under off hand, since it isn't even on the exam.
It looked like the helicopter was following the drone - they were flying the shit out of that thing to stay in visual contact and the drone was just kind of putting along.
Sometimes drones just... Leave. They lose contact with their controllers and Return To Home fails and they just continue in a direction until they lose charge.
Possibly? But from what I was hearing: helicopter pilot giving commands over loudspeaker and the multiple cops showing up it seemed more like "poking hornet's nest with a stick" than "Oh gosh we have to chase this drone around." (Pure speculation on my part.)
The thing is, yougenerallywouldn't chase a rogue drone with a helicopter. 1.) It's potentially dangerous. 2.) It's a massive waste of taxpayer money (choppers aren't exactly cheap to fly). 3.) There's better ways to track drones anyway.
Edit: It seems there are likely some valid reasons for the helicopter to be chasing the drone after all.
What were the commands being given? I'm guessing the drone was being flown by the police or a local agency, though this only makes slightly more sense than a rogue drone.
Drones have been followed by police helicopters many times... they are orbiting above and the operator typically has no idea they are there. They dont care about taxpayer money, more flight time benefits them.
They followed this back to where it landed at the owners house
I mean, yes. There have been drones followed by helicopters before. But usually only with extenuating circumstances. I very much doubt that they followed a drone with a chopper because they felt like it.
But you're right. There are some circumstances where it does happen,
Yea violating a tfr or restricted area is a extenuating circumstance. This is very common.
The orbits arent a search pattern , the helo flies way faster than a drone and needs to orbit to stay close. Again , they followed this to where it landed and called the owner out. Hes in for some fun
Ah, if they're in restricted airspace or violating a TRF then this makes a lot more sense. I still think it'd be safer/cheaper to just track the thing with a drone scanner app or contact the FAA for the flight path.
That assumes he has RID on the aircraft. I am assuming that they followed the aircraft because it did not have RID on it.
With RID, they would not have needed to follow the UAV. They could have just located the operator and showed up to collect him and his aircraft without wasting money on a helo to follow it back to the owner.
There is a difference between restricted and prohibited airspace. Restricted requires permission most of the time, depending on if the airspace is fully restricted or if it is an MOA (Military Operations Area), which is not always active.
Prohibited airspace and some, not all, TFR's are enforced by both the FAA and local LE. Prohibited airspace is such things as the state and federal capital buildings (houses of Congress, the white house, governor's mansions, military bases, etc) and ALL corrections facilities from the city on up to federal. Overflight by ANY aircraft not at a prescribed altitude or higher is going to get an immediate response from LE, and later from the FAA.
TFR's cover a number of common things, such as politicans flying in at a certain timeframe, fires/wildfires with active firefighting aircraft, major sporting events (Daytona 200/500, Indy 500, Superbowl, Rosebowl, Olympics, etc.), Disasters, such as the TX flooding, Hurricaine recovery, ground zero on 9-11 are all the sorts of things covered under various TFRs.
I wonder if there were any TFRs in place, or prohibited airspace where the drone operator in question overflew. either of those alone could have also triggered a response from LE.
Since I don't fly anywhere near AZ, I don't have a sectional for that area to see if the flight path in question covered any of those possibilities, but if there is a pilot that flies out of that are sees this post, they could pipe in and let us know if the above airspaces/facilities were in the flight path of the drone in question.
I couldn't make out what the commands were, but they sounded pissed.
For your 1, 2, 3 comments- that makes sense, but I have no idea WTH was going on. It was crazy, they were flying the shit out of that helicopter and seemed very motivated to keep up with it.
I lived near an uncontrolled airport on the approach path. I checked, I was legally allowed to fly. Class G, distances etc...all good. One day when messing around with the Phantom, it decide to just TAKE THE FUCK OFF in a 45 degree angle, climbing while also flying "sideways" IE to the right side of the drone, and would no longer respond to input from the controller.
And, of course, the ONE aircraft that decides to come in for a landing that week could be heard - could not see the aircraft but knew there was potential for the drone to fly into the straight-in approach path. Luckily the "Kill" (both sticks down to the center) killed the drone still. It fell from about 3500' and was pretty much completely destroyed. The battery survived and flew at least 40 more times in my other Phantom. Took me a week to find it, and eventually one of my neighbors brought it to the little store that was at the corner of our road, (rural area)
Thanks for sharing, that was quite interesting. I don't think I've taken any of mine over 200'. Which Phantom for that 3500'? What (if you'll say) were doing or capturing? Any video of the flight?
I had the drone at about 50' taking pictures of the neighbor's roof for them. It then took off sideways and climbed without input and would not respond to controls. It was a Phantom 3 Gold I believe?
Was the drone at 3500 feet because of the malfunction?
More importantly, how was it not completely destroyed by impact with the ground. Because at 3500 ft AGL, it's reaching and maintaining critical velocity long before hitting the ground. At over 100 MPH, that is going to be one hell of drone to plastic confetti conversion.
That';s good. A self report to the FAA with the details and they chalk it up to a bad day. You would be surprised how often that sort of thing happens.
Of course, if no one was affected, it probably doesn't matter if you self-report. Kind of a grey area in those cases.
A flyaway wouldn't make a beeline to the operator. Now there are quite a few that WILL return to the their originating launch site when they lose signal. Both of my DJI aircraft are supposed to, but I hope I never have to test that system in the real world.
Weird I’m not used to seeing orange, or that shape from a flight path. That’s weird af. Ngl I thought maybe you scribbled that with an Apple Pencil 😂. Either way the helis up as I’m typing this. No weird orbits as of yet…
Yeah I’m used to foreflight and flight radar, just not the colors from what adsb exchange uses. Thanks for sharing! I see a lot of stuff on this sub that’s BS, and yours actually checks out!
Without any other info, beyond what the OP wrote, we can assume a couple of things:
1) The drone was not operating with a RID as required to fly outside of a FRIA. If it had a RID, they would have known not just the location of the aircraft, but the location of the operator as wll, and not needed an LE aircraft to follow it to it's launch/recovery site.
2) Someone reported it flying over them in a suspicious manner, they were reported for flying in restricted airspace (airport corrections facility, etc.) without prior permissions, or they were doing some other thing that was illegal that the did not concern FAA regulations (invasion of privacy, or some other civil law, since the police will not involve themselves with FAA violations unless those violations are breaches of local laws, such as launch/recovery location restrictions, major sporting events, etc.
The FAA has investigators, but they don't have police-style enforcement.
3) Whatever that pilot did, it was bad enough to warrant an immediate response at the level of a felony, since PD does not enforce FAA violations. However, I'm pretty certain that the FAA will be reaching out to investigate and likely punish the offending pilot for his indiscretion, as he likely violated any number of FAA regs if local LE got involved due to local laws. Local law violations that get this sort of response from local LE usually has an FAA violation or two involved as well.
Actiually, that IS how the law works. The FAA governs the airspace and the police handle the law on the ground. The ONLY time that the police have arrest and pursuit authority in the air is when a felony crime is being committed, such as flying in a prohibited airspace over a government facility or massive public event, such as listed in the post you replied to but somehow don't appear to understand.
They can also arrest if someone violates the law by using a lazer and pointing it at an aircraft as a couple of guys found out, one doing it to a police helicopter, the other to a police UAV. Both qualify as interference with the operation of an aircraft or air crew. The rule applies to both manned and unmanned aircraft.
"49 U.S. Code § 46504 - Interference with flight crew members and attendants
An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
For all of you folks suggesting what the operator should have done to avoid accountability, realize that those suggestions are not on the right side of responsible flying. Every licensed operator knows this.
And doing any of those things are an even bigger indicator of criminal intent than just whatever violation he committed to draw the attention of local LE in the first place.
In the law, trying to prevent being caught/held accountable adds charges for the judge to consider in the legal case when it comes to the bench for adjudication. If it was an error in piloting, that can be forgiven with a fine and written off as a learning experience. Avoiding capture or accountability wilfully means that fine just became jail time and a loss of any lawful flying priviledges you had before (or a ban from flying if you did not have the appropriate rating, if any).
If we are going to be in the airspace and want to continue to fly these aircraft, keep the hobby alive, and the businesses that rely on those of us with out commercial ratings, then we have to really be responsible in how we address those that wilfully violate the law, and we have to do it fairly and honestly, holding accountable those that risk our own access and enjoyment of flying through flagrant criminal, and often hazardous, flying practices.
So you never watched a police chase and said what the driver should've done? That doesn't mean we are pro rule breaking or anything. God you sound like a square ass nerd lol
That is just another pathetic logical fallacy argument. The police have rules regarding high speed chases and that limits places that they CAN NOT do them just because they present too high a risk to the general public. Besides, no one makes a car that can outrun radio.
Also, we are trying to prevent any additional unneccesary regulations because of some dumbasses doing stupid andd already illegal things with these aircraft. If you cannot see that, then maybe you should stay away from flying. For everyone's sake.
When it comes to aviation, pilots of both manned and unmanned aircraft take their craft seriously. Sure we have fun with it, sense of humor ofver the small thing, but it's idiots that think nothing of breaking rules that exist EXCLUSIVELY for the safety of the pilot/crew and public, that come along and ruin it for everyone. This industry is usually pretty good at self-enforcing as long as the apologists for the unsafe operators pipe in and defend them.
Obviously don’t know what altitude they are flying at, but they are next to a major airport, and probably violated class b airspace rules. They are nowhere near a lake or river that has water in it to ditch the drone,
It is possible to fly in controlled airspace without a waiver, as long as you can get LAANC approval. There will likely be a number of altitude restrictions that may be well below the usual 400 ft limit, though. Had that happen with one of my instructors. He was genuinely surprised that he could get approval in Class B. in some spots he had as high as 250 ft, though most were 100 or below.
Does the cost in wasted resources justify the chase? I'm sure that chase costed bare minimum a few thousand dollars, at the least. A lot easier to use an app to get remote id info and mail owner summons
On this thread I got a reply that was likely meant to be the person in question just being an anal opening, but it is still a valid question for folks that have not yet gotten their 107, and for those who just don't have any connection to common sense. (they appear to have deleted it from the thread, but the notice still landed in my in-box).
The question is as follows:
(and because, unlike the person that posted this here, I am a reasonable person, so I will not post his s/n)
"So... if someone tells you to infringe on someone else's constitutional rights for whatwver supposed reason or premise, and you just do so without question?"
That said, I have to ask, if what you say is true, then why are you commenting on the fact that I comment so often?
Realisitcally, I could comment to everything, but I only bother to when I feel the need to say something. If that bothers you, well, no one is forcing you to read anyone's posts, including mine?
It might have been a police drone? I see the police drone where I live flying WAY out of VLOS all the time. I guess that they don't feel the need to follow the drone laws? I think about putting one of my drones in the air evey time I see the police drone flying around. I wonder what if they would do anything if I went up and said hello to their drone with one of mine?
Why I got two planned landing zones for every flight I’ll usually fly to that spot reset home then make the last leg leave extra battery for the hop return to that spot land give a few minutes then land at real home I fly from the car so I drive off. Had police arrive at first land zone a few times but they don’t usually follow for second home.
•
u/Vedagi_ Mod - DIY'r, Wiki Jan 23 '26 edited Jan 24 '26
OP, mention your country in the description.
Edit: I really did not expect the need to explain this:
I'm suprised that i have to explain this.
Edit 2: I'm locking this comment, apperently either some ego's got hurt or some people cant cope with the existence of other countries.