Apollo AS-III accident near Poipu, Hawaii, December 22, 2010
On December 22, 2010 at about 6:30 pm local time, a Apollo AS-III (weight-shift aircraft), registered N157AP, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (cruise) near Poipu, Hawaii (Port Arthur airport). It was an instructional flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot's lack of compliance with manufacturer's guidance for care and handling of the aircraft combined with incomplete preflight inspections, which resulted in an undetected material failure of the nose cone.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- December 22, 2010 · about 6:30 pm local time
- Place
- Poipu, Hawaii · Port Arthur · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Apollo AS-III
- Registration
- N157AP · registry record · serial 8
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The special light sport weight-shift control aircraft, commonly referred to as a "trike," took off from its base on the island of Kauai, Hawaii, on a "discovery" flight. On board were the instructor-rated pilot and the passenger-student. According to the pilot, while in cruise flight about 45 minutes after takeoff, the aircraft became "extremely difficult" to control, and the fabric wing skin was "fluttering intensely" along its trailing edge. The pilot opted for a precautionary landing on a nearby golf course. During the landing roll, the aircraft tipped onto one wing. Postlanding examination of the aircraft revealed that the fabric nose cone that was installed over the centerline juncture of the two wing leading edge tubes was damaged. The purpose of the nose cone was to prevent ram air from entering and inflating the wings during flight, which would change the wing profiles and result in controllability problems. The aircraft manufacturer indicated that the nose cone damage was primarily due to the nose cone being left in place when the wings were folded for transport or storage, a practice which was strongly discouraged by the manufacturer. In addition, although the manufacturer recommended against unprotected storage of the aircraft to preclude fabric deterioration from the elements, the pilot was known to store the aircraft outside on a regular basis. In combination, those practices by the pilot, which were contrary to the manufacturer's guidance, resulted in the degradation and eventual failure of the nose cone. With the aircraft on its wheels, the nose cone and upper surface of the wing were at least 8 feet above the ground, but there was no evidence that the operator or the accident pilot had or utilized a stepladder or other means to access and inspect the nose cone and wing upper surface before flight. The lack of equipment to conduct a thorough preflight inspection prevented timely detection of the deterioration of the nose cone.
The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.
The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- Aircraft maintenance event during prior to flight
- Aircraft inspection event during prior to flight
- Aircraft structural failure during enroute (cruise) defining event
- Flight control sys malf/fail during enroute (cruise)
- Loss of control on ground during landing (landing roll)
The NTSB's findings
- Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › (general) › (general) › Contributed to outcome
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft handling/service › Maintenance/inspections › (general) › Incorrect service/maintenance
Pilot
- Certificate: sport pilot
- Ratings: instructor: sport pilot
- Flight time: 525 hours in all; 516 in this make and model
- Medical certificate: Sport Pilot
- Seat: frt
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Maximum gross weight: 1,040 lb
- Seats: 2
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Rotax 912ULS (piston); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: PAK Hanapepe HI at 5:45 pm
- Flight plan: none
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 260° at 3 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: scat at 2,000 ft
- Temperature: 70°F (21°C), dew point 68°F (20°C)
- Altimeter: 29.95 inHg
- Observation at 6:53 pm from LIH, 8 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 | |||
| Passengers | 1 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.
Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.