Cri-Cri and multi engine rating

Yes.

Why would building or flying one be crazy?

Good luck getting plans. The designer broke with North America about twenty years ago, and refuses to sell plans to or cooperate with any building of a Cri-Cri in the US.

You can probably find some used out there, caveat emptor.
 
I would suppose that since you are not going to be carrying passengers you could get away with an endorsement from a CFI under FAR 61.31(d)(2)

Brian
 
brcase said:
I would suppose that since you are not going to be carrying passengers you could get away with an endorsement from a CFI under FAR 61.31(d)(2)

Brian
Click to expand...
No, there is an "and" to 61.31 (d)1.
 
I thought you didn't need category and class for single seat experimentals?
 
.............can you find the reg? I've never found ANY exceptions to category and class.....and would love the education if you can find the cite. I cannot.

Anybody? I've seen checkrides for single seat types (Warbird LOAs) occur from the ground with binoculars.....but all ASEL/S.
 
Seanaldinho said:
I thought I read somewhere that the engines are both on one control so no multi was needed.
Click to expand...

If you have two props driven by one engine, that's a single engine, but the Cri-Cri has two distinct engines.
 
The other interesting thing is, for the Cri-Cri, it's not an LSA.
 
I don't have a cite, internet rumor. Iirc it was the single seat experimental helicopter guys talking about it. Sorry, I don't have solid info.
bbchien said:
.............can you find the reg? I've never found ANY exceptions to category and class.....and would love the education if you can find the cite. I cannot.

Anybody? I've seen checkrides for single seat types (Warbird LOAs) occur from the ground with binoculars.....but all ASEL/S.
Click to expand...
 
bbchien said:
No, there is an "and" to 61.31 (d)1.
Click to expand...
Looks like an "or" to me.
(d) Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations on operating an aircraft as the pilot in command. To serve as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must--


(1) Hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown; or (2) Have received training required by this part that is appropriate to the pilot certification level, aircraft category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown, and have received an endorsement for solo flight in that aircraft from an authorized instructor.
​
Click to expand...
However, since the Cri-Cri is a single-seat Experimental, the 61.31 rating limitations do not apply (see below) so the 61.31(d)(2) endorsement is not required.
 
Last edited:
ClimbnSink said:
I thought you didn't need category and class for single seat experimentals?
Click to expand...
You don't. See 61.31(l):
(l) Exceptions. ...
(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to--
...

(iii) The holder of a pilot certificate when operating an aircraft under the authority of--
​
(A) A provisional type certificate; or
(B ) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves carrying a passenger;
​
Click to expand...
But you still might be smart to get some appropriate training before going up solo in an Experimental for which you do not have the appropriate rating.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
No, there is an "and" to 61.31 (d)1.
Click to expand...

(My copy of the regs show an "or".)

But the section I think everyone is looking for is paragraph L, "Exceptions" at the end of 61.31. I capitalized the L but in the regs it is lower case, and l looks a lot like 1 (the number.)

Anyway, note that the "Exceptions" paragraph says that 61.31 (and therefore the prohibition of flying without an appropriate category and class rating) doesn't apply to non-type-certificated aircraft. Experimental aircraft are not type certificated. Ergo no category or class is required to fly an experimental. However, the operating limitations issued for each experimental aircraft is the place that any category and class limitations will be found, as shown beginning on page 4-75 of FAA Order 8130.2G. Note that it states that operating limitations must be designed to fit the specific situation. It is possible for the builder to get a set of operating limitations written that allows them to operate without having the category and class. This is something all those ornithopter experimentalist no doubt need, as no existing category covers such aircraft.
 
Ron Levy said:
You don't. See 61.31(l):
But you still might be smart to get some appropriate training before going up solo in an Experimental for which you do not have the appropriate rating.
Click to expand...

But the standard template for operating limitations does require category and class. I do know a couple of gentlemen who built an experimental airship and got issued operating limitations allowing them to fly it even though neither one had an airship rating. The still weren't allowed to carry passengers, though. I think they petitioned to have that restriction removed.
 
It looks like a mini Beech Duchess :)

minus the engines not being mounted on the wings.
 
The section to which Jim refers applies (item 17 on the list) only to turbojet/turbofan-powered aircraft, those with MGW of 12,500 or more, or "when deemed necessary." It is not normally included and I do not think it has ever been applied in a case like the one under discussion.
 
AuntPeggy said:
I spoke to a fella once who was flying one. He said that it qualifies as BOTH single engine and multi-engine.
Click to expand...
I would like to see the FAA regulation or other paperwork which states that.
You don't need a multi-engine endorsement to fly it.
Click to expand...
True, but the reason for that is as a single-seat Experimental, it falls under one of the exceptions in 61.31(l), not that is is considered a single-engine airplane.

Also note that the next item, #18, includes a note referencing the wrong paragraph of 61.31, paragraph (k), which was renumbered paragraph (l) three years ago.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
I would like to see the FAA regulation or other paperwork which states that.
True, but the reason for that is as a single-seat Experimental, it falls under one of the exceptions in 61.31(l), not that is is considered a single-engine airplane.
Click to expand...

There is a strange specific ruling on the Cri Cri out there, but IIRC it leaned in the direction of it not being considered a multi due to geometry.
 
Henning said:
There is a strange specific ruling on the Cri Cri out there, but IIRC it leaned in the direction of it not being considered a multi due to geometry.
Click to expand...

I think that was for logged time. Think how popular those things would be if you could count it as valid twin time.:idea:
 
Henning said:
There is a strange specific ruling on the Cri Cri out there, but IIRC it leaned in the direction of it not being considered a multi due to geometry.
Click to expand...
If that were true, then a C-336/337 would not be considered multiengine, and I know that isn't so. The only issue I see is whether or not it would be considered centerline thrust, but that still requires an ME rating (even if limited to CLT) or 61.31(d)(2) endorsement for any but the exceptional situations in 61.31(l) (one of which we already know applies to the Experimental single-seat Cri-Cri). But if you do find that "strange specific ruling," please share it with us.
 
A Cri Cri used to come pretty regularly to the Wings Fly BQ. It always drew a crowd. Neat little, and I do mean little airplane. I remember discussing the multi-engine issue with the owner/pilot, but I don't remember what he said about it now. :confused:
 
From an EAA newsletter interpretation (for whatever that's worth)

http://www.eaa.org/ehotline/issues/110107.html
Q & A: I have been giving serious thought to building a Cri-Cri. But how does the FAA view this airplane? It is light enough to be an ultralight, but appears to fly too fast to be one. It can't qualify as an LSA because it has two engines. Therefore it must be an experimental amateur-built twin, requiring at least a private certificate with a multi-engine rating and a third class medical to fly it, right?

Answer: You are correct in that the Cri-Cri does not qualify as a Part 103 ultralight or a light-sport aircraft. While it does have two engines, there is a provision in FAR 61.31 that allows an experimental aircraft to be exempt from category and class requirements:

Type rating requirements, additional training, and authorization requirements.

(L) Exceptions.
(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to -
(B ) An experimental certificate, unless the operation involves carrying a passenger

However, the FAA inspector or designated airworthiness representative (DAR) who conducts the airworthiness inspection and issues the airworthiness certificate may require the pilot have the appropriate category and class pilot certificate and ratings, and would then specify that requirement in the aircraft's Operating Limitations.

Bottom line: If the appropriate category and class requirement are listed in the Operating Limitations, you must have a minimum of a private pilot certificate, a third-class medical certificate, and a multi-engine rating to fly the Cri-Cri.
Click to expand...
 
Whether one is legally required to hold the multi-engine rating or not ought to be of secondary consideration to safety. One ought to be competent in a multi engine airplane, regardless of whether or not the engines are out on the wings or closer to the centerline, and regardless of whether or not the engines work off one control or two.

An understanding of multi engine aerodynamics, the effects of assymetrical thrust, the need to reduce power on the good engine (especially when close to stall), and so forth is essential.

One may not require it, but one should have it, and if one is seeking the proper training, there's no reason not to get the rating.
 
Ron Levy said:
The section to which Jim refers applies (item 17 on the list) only to turbojet/turbofan-powered aircraft, those with MGW of 12,500 or more, or "when deemed necessary." It is not normally included and I do not think it has ever been applied in a case like the one under discussion.
Click to expand...

You may be correct, since I interrupted the composition of my post to go eat dinner and on returning decided to quickly wrap it up - then found after I finally finished that you had posted much earlier. (I knew from research I did on this subject several years ago what the answer was, but had to go relocate the regulation and the FAA order. I stopped scanning 61.31 as soon as I thought I found what I had seen years ago.)

However, section 61.31 covers more topics than pilot "type ratings," and 61.31(l)(1) references "aircraft not type-certificated," not "pilot not type-rated." Powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft, which are mentioned in that paragraph, are unlikely to exceed 12,500 lbs. So I think that paragraph is not concerned with large aircraft type ratings; maybe it is indeed intended to cover aircraft like ornithopters.

But your reference to 61.31(l)(2)(iii)(B ) is more appropriate, regardless.

My own interest in this regulatory subject occurred when I was interested in building an experimental airship several years ago (who knows, maybe I still will.) It costs a fair amount of money to get an airship rating, so it was at first a nice revelation to see that exception. I found it hard to believe, though, that people wouldn't abuse the exception. I eventually found that the generic operating limitations issued on most experimentals closed the exception.

This may have some minor value to those who are interested in flying unconventional experimental aircraft like the Cri-Cri:

Back when I was more heavily researching airship design I became acquainted with Dan Nachbar who had designed and was building a Personal Blimp (the video really shows the beauty of genuine low-and-slow sight seeing with a relatively quiet airship.) According to this story and this story, he and his partner did eventually get the exemption they sought to carry passengers in their experimental airship without an airship rating.
 
Old Geek said:
I'm more confused than when I first asked the question....
Click to expand...

What part is confusing? The regs as written would allow you to fly a Cri Cri without a multi-engine rating so long as the Operating Limitations that were issued for that particular aircraft didn't include any limitations on pilot category and class. Operating limitations for experimentals are issued on a per airplane basis, so it isn't possible to provide more specific guidance.
 
Old Geek said:
I'm more confused than when I first asked the question....
Click to expand...
To summarize 30 posts, the applicable regulation (14 CFR 61.31) allows a Private Pilot (or better) to fly the Cri-Cri without an AMEL rating unless that particular Cri-Cri's operating limitations include a requirement for holding that rating (which is not a given). The only way to be certain is to check that Cri-Cri's operating limitations (which, IIRC, must be in the plane).

Got it?
 
bigred177 said:
Throw some RC airplane turbines on it and get some turbine, multi time. :)
Click to expand...

It's been done.

Subject: World's smallest Twin engine plane

Noted French pilot Nicolas Charmont has installed 2 AMT Olympus
turbines in his Cri Cri together with AMT on-board automatic
start-up units and individual EDT's. (AMT is a?company from Netherlands.)
The Cri Cri weighs 170 Kg (375 lbs), and should have enhanced
performance with over 36 Kg (80 lbs) of thrust available.

The Cri Cri has made his maiden flight in the weekend of 7-8 March.
Top speed at this flight was 240 km/hour (150 mph). Flying with
only one engine the speed is still 160 km/hour (100 mph).
Click to expand...

jpgee88U1jMQd.jpg

jpg1gxbPzuCtt.jpg

jpgylud0IVtZO.jpg
 
So who writes the operating limitations? And who has to follow them?

Wasn't there a big blowup about an extensively modified RV that won some sort of best of show at Oshkosh? Van wrote a magazine article about how it violated numerous instances of the operating limitations but it still flew to Oshkosh and won.
 
Old Geek said:
So who writes the operating limitations?
Click to expand...
The Inspector or DAR issuing the Airworthiness Certificate, IAW the FAA Order linked above.
And who has to follow them?
Click to expand...
Anyone who flies the aircraft -- 14 CFR 91.9(a):
Sec. 91.9

Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a big blowup about an extensively modified RV that won some sort of best of show at Oshkosh? Van wrote a magazine article about how it violated numerous instances of the operating limitations but it still flew to Oshkosh and won.
Click to expand...
The awards at AirVenture are presented by the EAA, not the FAA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top