Lawsuit alleges negligence by Yingling Aviation led to plane that won’t fly

An international company that hired Mid-Continent Aviation Services and Yingling Aviation to inspect a plane prior to and just after buying it is suing the Wichita companies for more than $5 million, alleging negligence and fraud that resulted in a plane that won’t fly.

“Someone didn’t know what they were doing and carelessly destroyed an airplane,” said Wichita attorney Russ Hazlewood.

He represents Burgan I, a Cayman Islands-based affiliate of Kuwait-based Burgan Drilling.

Burgan sued the companies in Sedgwick County District Court late last month.

In an e-mailed response to questions from The Eagle, Yingling vice president of financial planning and analysis Andrew Nichols said, “On advice of counsel, Yingling doesn’t comment on pending litigation.”

In February 2024, Burgan signed an agreement to buy a Hawker 4000 business jet for $3.6 million. The purchase was subject to an inspection of the plane, which it paid to fly from Denmark to Mid-Continent Aviation Services, a company Yingling acquired around the same time.

Both companies are based at Eisenhower National Airport, and the suit said Mid-Continent had done substantial maintenance on the plane under a previous owner.

“Yingling’s written report identified no engine discrepancies, found no condition categorized as non-airworthy with respect to either the engines or the brakes,” the suit said, adding that the inspection showed the brake assemblies had substantial life left in them.

In September 2024, Burgan proceeded with its purchase and paid Yingling for further inspection, upgrades and mechanical work.

The company then paid to have the plane ferried to Florida to install a new interior and cabin electronics, among other things.

The suit said that in addition to the cost of buying the plane, Burgan paid about $1.5 million for various inspections, ferrying, upgrades and mechanical issues in the time since it agreed to buy the plane.

Another inspection

Once work was completed in Florida, Hazlewood said, Burgan took the opportunity to complete the plane’s 600-hour inspection while it was still in the United States.

The plane was ferried back to Yingling for the inspection, which is required by the manufacturer and regulators. It’s a significantly more thorough inspection than the pre-purchase inspection, Hazlewood said.

In January 2025, the suit said, Burgan paid a deposit of about a third of what the inspection would cost.

“Yingling promptly started finding very expensive things that needed fixed,” Hazlewood said.

The suit said those included a set of new brakes “even though Yingling had supposedly inspected those same brake assemblies during the pre-purchase inspection only two flights earlier and reported that they had remaining useful life.”

Hazlewood said Burgan had safety and financial concerns.

“Burgan was asking questions about why it wasn’t discovered (in the pre-purchase inspection) and also what could be done economically to get these things repaired.”

The suit said Yingling demanded payment for work it had done so far and said that it would move the plane outdoors and charge for outside storage if it didn’t get the money immediately.

In June, Hazlewood said that’s what happened.

That same month, the suit said, “Yingling issued a revised change authorization replacing the earlier repair approach with a Pratt & Whitney Canada mobile repair team option at an estimated cost of $708,182.39.”

The Yingling invoices totaled almost $1.1 million or, as the suit said, “more than ten times the original estimate.”

More problems

Further, the suit said, Yingling claimed to have done necessary preservation for the plane to be stored outside and charged Burgan for it.

That purportedly included wrapping the engine cowlings in plastic so they didn’t get water in them, among other steps to counter potential humidity.

“You want to keep them dry,” Hazlewood said. “They were supposed to be going out and checking it.”

Yingling filed a more than $388,000 lien against the plane in August and said it would not do any other work until paid.

In early October, Burgan paid that amount, Hazlewood said.

Yingling confirmed receipt of the money, Hazlewood said, and he said the company added, “Oh, by the way, we identified some additional corrosion, and the engines may need to go to a shop.”

Burgan asked to see the plane, but Hazlewood said the company was told it could see the plane only if it would then take the plane, which he said was impossible since it could not fly.

By late October, Burgan was able to have someone inspect the plane, which Hazlewood said is how the company learned the drain holes on the bottom of the engine cowlings — which he said are supposed to always remain open — had been made water tight with aluminum tape.

“There’s no excuse,” he said. “The manual is very clear that those at all times must remain free of blockage.”

Within 30 days of that, Burgan demanded Yingling fix the plane or buy it for everything the company had put into it.

‘They all flinch’

Burgan wanted the Hawker for its own purposes and to operate as a charter service, Hazlewood said.

Other than hiring pilots to ferry the plane between inspections and getting work done on the plane, “The company has never flown it.”

Not only that, Hazlewood said, “It doesn’t look like it’ll ever fly again.”

The lawsuit includes several photos of the plane and corrosion on it along with parts of the engine that were underwater.

Hazlewood said he believes the photos show “gross negligence.”

“When I show this to mechanics, they all flinch. They’ve never seen anything like it.”

He said Yingling is “not disputing that they caused this in a way that shouldn’t have happened.”

However, he said, Yingling claims that its terms and conditions limit the company’s liability to what it charged for services.

“There’s a fight over that, but they’re claiming it applies.”

Hazlewood said he believes he’ll be able to prove that Yingling knew the plane’s engines had been destroyed.

He said the photos show that the plane “looks like it came up with the Titanic” in some parts.

“They hid that till we wired hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

The suit said, “Yingling’s acts and omission herein were willful, wanton, and fraudulent.”

Hazlewood and Burgan are demanding a jury trial.