CFI.reviews
Explore the record
FIRST-PERSON EVIDENCE ARCHIVE

My Experience With GEM Aviation and CFI Jose E. Capellan

A documented account of how a scheduling dispute became a solo-authorization dispute and ultimately a claimed withdrawal of my endorsement.

View the chronology Inspect the evidence
INTRODUCTION

The question this record examines

I trained with CFI Jose E. Capellan through GEM Aviation and received a PA-28-140 solo endorsement on August 2, 2026. I completed solo flights on August 2 and August 3.

On August 29, CFI Jose E. Capellan and I flew together. In a written response the following day, he said that I “flew great overall,” while also explaining that I was flying with an instructor, still needed some assistance, and had specific concerns involving the KCLL and KAXH approaches.

My concern is not that a CFI identified safety issues. My concern is how and when those issues became grounds for ending my solo activity.

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

A Note on Instruction and Safety

I am a student pilot, and I still have a great deal to learn. I expect instructors to identify mistakes, challenge me, require additional training when necessary, and make conservative decisions when safety is involved. I value direct coaching, including criticism I may not always enjoy hearing.

My concern in this account is not that an instructor corrected me or declined a particular solo flight. It is whether the standards governing my solo readiness were communicated clearly and applied consistently, and whether concerns that were not presented as solo-disqualifying during one lesson became so only after a separate disagreement.

I want future instructors to be demanding with me. What I need in return is a clear standard, candid feedback when something changes, and confidence that safety authority is being exercised consistently and professionally.

EVIDENTIARY REVIEW

Before You Draw a Conclusion

These questions concern my training experience with CFI Jose E. Capellan through GEM Aviation.

There are several conclusions the available evidence does not allow me to state as fact. Here is what I can document instead.

WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING

I am not claiming retaliation by CFI Jose E. Capellan as a proven fact.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

What I can document is the sequence.

On August 29, CFI Jose E. Capellan flew with me and did not tell me during the postflight debrief that my local-solo readiness had ended.

On August 30, I raised recurring aircraft-availability problems and discussed using other instructors or aircraft so I could fly more consistently.

When I then requested the available 5:00 PM aircraft opening for solo practice, the first stated reason for denying the flight was that my previous solo had occurred more than three weeks earlier.

After I questioned that explanation, specific concerns from the August 29 flight became the basis for requiring more dual instruction.

After I raised the issue with GEM management and attempted to use the direct-booking process Glenn later described, GEM stated that CFI Jose E. Capellan had withdrawn the authorization represented by my existing endorsement.

Later that day, CFI Jose E. Capellan formally withdrew as my flight instructor and issued a signed Solo Privileges Withdrawn notice.

That progression is why I believe the disagreement influenced how CFI Jose E. Capellan exercised his CFI discretion.

Review the escalation timeline
EVIDENCE TESTDid the August 30 disagreement influence CFI Jose E. Capellan's later decision?

Evidence that raises the question

  • No communicated loss of solo readiness during the August 29 debrief.
  • The August 30 scheduling dispute and discussion of alternative instructors or aircraft.
  • The initial three-week explanation, followed by a detailed performance explanation after I questioned the decision.
  • Escalation to GEM management, the Flight Schedule Pro discrepancy, and the later formal withdrawal.

Evidence supporting CFI Jose E. Capellan or GEM

  • CFI Jose E. Capellan identified specific KCLL and KAXH safety concerns.
  • Garmin provides some support for the late-high KAXH characterization.
  • A CFI has legitimate safety responsibilities, and CFI Jose E. Capellan provided a detailed written proficiency explanation.
  • GEM offered reassessment through another CFI, and my original August 30 request included KLBX.
What the evidence establishes
The chronology and escalation.
What the evidence does not establish
CFI Jose E. Capellan's internal motive.
Dave's assessment
The timing gives me substantial reason to believe the dispute influenced how the discretion was exercised.
WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING

I am not claiming CFI Jose E. Capellan fabricated his safety concerns.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

CFI Jose E. Capellan identified legitimate instructional concerns involving the KCLL and KAXH approaches.

The Garmin record supports some portions of his later account more than others.

At KCLL, the recorded ground-speed data weakens a broad characterization that the aircraft was very slow throughout the runway-aligned final.

At KAXH, the recorded flight path provides some support for CFI Jose E. Capellan's statement that the aircraft was high late in the approach.

My concern is therefore not that every safety concern was invented.

My concern is when those concerns became solo-disqualifying and why that consequence was not communicated during the August 29 postflight debrief.

Inspect the August 29 flight data
EVIDENCE TESTDid the KCLL data support the phrase ‘very slow’?

Evidence that raises the question

  • The analyzed runway-aligned final shows an approximately 70.5-knot median ground speed in light reported wind.
  • The GPX does not show a sustained late-final ground-speed collapse in the analyzed segment.

Evidence supporting CFI Jose E. Capellan or GEM

  • CFI Jose E. Capellan was in the aircraft and wrote that I became very slow on approach.
  • Garmin recorded ground speed, not indicated airspeed, and cannot establish angle of attack, stall margin, configuration, or instructor intervention.
  • The analyzed alignment does not resolve every moment of the broader approach.
What the evidence establishes
The recorded ground-speed profile for the sufficiently aligned portion of the KCLL final.
What the evidence does not establish
Cockpit indicated airspeed or whether CFI Jose E. Capellan observed a different or momentary condition outside that analyzed segment.
Dave's assessment
The data weakens a broad characterization that the aircraft was very slow throughout the runway-aligned final, but it does not disprove every part of CFI Jose E. Capellan's observation.
EVIDENCE TESTWas I high at KAXH?

Evidence that raises the question

  • The trace is consistent with a late high condition and a steeper-than-PAPI convergence toward the runway.
  • I recall that CFI Jose E. Capellan covered the airspeed indicator and described my height as ‘perfect,’ or words to that effect, during the downwind-to-base turn.

Evidence supporting CFI Jose E. Capellan or GEM

  • The Garmin trace gives limited support to CFI Jose E. Capellan's later high-approach characterization.
  • An aircraft can be appropriately positioned during the downwind-to-base turn and become high later during base or final.
  • No cockpit audio presently corroborates my recollection, and the data cannot establish continuous coaching or control inputs.
What the evidence establishes
The recorded late flight path and a calculated steeper-than-PAPI convergence for the analyzed portion of final.
What the evidence does not establish
Exactly when the condition developed, whether the approach was unsafe, who made each control input, or whether coaching occurred continuously.
Dave's assessment
The data supports part of CFI Jose E. Capellan's later criticism. My continuing concern is that the approach was not communicated during the debrief as ending my solo readiness.
WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING

I am not claiming CFI Jose E. Capellan denied solo solely to create additional billable instruction.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

Additional dual instruction naturally creates additional paid CFI time.

I do not have evidence establishing that financial benefit motivated CFI Jose E. Capellan's decision.

The question that concerned me was why additional dual became necessary after the August 30 disagreement when CFI Jose E. Capellan had flown with me the previous day and had not told me during that debrief that my solo readiness had ended.

See how the solo decision developed
WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING

I am not claiming that CFI Jose E. Capellan deliberately misrepresented the Flight Schedule Pro process.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

My experience working with CFI Jose E. Capellan led me to understand that I needed to go through him to check aircraft availability and arrange solo time.

Glenn later told me that endorsed students should view aircraft availability and book solo flights directly through Flight Schedule Pro.

He also stated that my executive assistant could receive monitor-only access.

That is a material discrepancy in the process communicated to me.

The available evidence does not establish whether it resulted from intentional concealment, misunderstanding, or inconsistent practice.

Read Glenn's scheduling explanation
EVIDENCE TESTWas Flight Schedule Pro access communicated consistently?

Evidence that raises the question

  • My experience led me to understand that I needed to go through CFI Jose E. Capellan for solo availability and scheduling.
  • Glenn later described direct booking by endorsed students and monitor-only access for my executive assistant.

Evidence supporting CFI Jose E. Capellan or GEM

  • Glenn answered the scheduling question and explained GEM's stated process.
  • The difference may reflect misunderstanding or inconsistent practice rather than intentional concealment.
What the evidence establishes
A material difference between the process I understood and followed and the process Glenn later described.
What the evidence does not establish
That CFI Jose E. Capellan intentionally misrepresented or concealed the scheduling system.
Dave's assessment
Had the direct-booking process been clear to me earlier, much of the scheduling friction may have been avoided.
WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING

I am not claiming the billing errors were intentional.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

Two instructional billing entries were corrected, totaling $162.50.

The adjustments were processed and the resulting charges were later reconciled.

I include that history because repeated administrative errors affected my trust at the time.

I do not claim fraud, theft, or intentional overbilling.

Review the billing record
EVIDENCE TESTDid billing establish intentional misconduct?

Evidence that raises the question

  • Two separate instructional billing entries required corrections totaling $162.50.
  • Repeated errors affected my confidence in the administrative process at the time.

Evidence supporting CFI Jose E. Capellan or GEM

  • Both corrections were processed.
  • The resulting charges were later reconciled, and no billing dispute is currently outstanding.
What the evidence establishes
Two corrected billing entries in my own account.
What the evidence does not establish
Fraud, theft, intentional overbilling, a pattern involving other students, or a financial motive for the solo decision.
Dave's assessment
The corrected errors affected my baseline trust, but I do not use them to explain CFI Jose E. Capellan's later decision.
WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING

I am not claiming that CFI Jose E. Capellan weaponized his CFI authority as an established fact.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

A CFI has significant responsibility and discretion concerning student solo flight.

My concern is whether that discretion was exercised through a stable, consistently communicated safety standard or whether the August 30 disagreement influenced how severely it was exercised.

The record shows a progression from one denied solo request to the formal termination of the instructor relationship and withdrawal of the prior solo authorization after the dispute escalated.

That sequence created what I experienced as a gatekeeping effect.

It does not independently establish CFI Jose E. Capellan's internal motive.

Review the complete chronology
WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING

I am not claiming that withdrawing the endorsement violated FAA regulations.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

GEM and CFI Jose E. Capellan state that the solo authorization associated with the August 2 endorsement was withdrawn.

Glenn asked me to present my logbook so the withdrawal could be noted.

CFI Jose E. Capellan later sent a signed Solo Privileges Withdrawn notice and stated that the prior authorization was withdrawn effective immediately.

I submitted a request to the Houston FSDO for guidance concerning the regulatory status and proper documentation of the existing endorsement.

No substantive FAA response had been received as of September 2, 2026.

Until the FAA provides substantive guidance, I am not presenting a legal conclusion.

Review the endorsement question
EVIDENCE TESTWas the endorsement withdrawal a continuation of the August 30 decision or a later escalation?

Evidence that raises the question

  • The August 30 discussion began with denial of one requested solo flight.
  • Glenn later stated that CFI Jose E. Capellan had withdrawn the endorsement and confirmed both dispatch denial and withdrawal of the existing solo authorization.
  • CFI Jose E. Capellan then formally ended the instructor relationship and issued a signed withdrawal notice.

Evidence supporting CFI Jose E. Capellan or GEM

  • CFI Jose E. Capellan attributed the withdrawal to his proficiency and safety evaluation.
  • GEM controls dispatch of its aircraft and offered another CFI, continued dual instruction, reassessment, and a possible new endorsement.
What the evidence establishes
The documented progression from a denied flight to a formal termination and claimed withdrawal.
What the evidence does not establish
CFI Jose E. Capellan's internal motive or whether the withdrawal procedure was legally correct.
Dave's assessment
I view the formal action as a material escalation after the scheduling dispute and management contact.
WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING

I am not claiming that my August 29 flight was technically perfect.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

It was not, and that is not my argument.

CFI Jose E. Capellan identified concerns at KCLL and KAXH.

The Garmin record supports some parts of his account and weakens others.

Student pilots make mistakes, and instructors are supposed to identify them.

The question I am documenting is why these particular concerns were not communicated during the August 29 debrief as ending my solo readiness, but became central to that decision after the following day's disagreement.

Compare the written account with the flight record
WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING

I am not claiming GEM prevented me from continuing flight training altogether.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

Glenn offered another GEM instructor to reassess me and, if appropriate, issue another endorsement.

GEM also remained willing to provide dual instruction.

Those facts should be credited to GEM.

My dispute concerns how the relationship with CFI Jose E. Capellan ended and how the solo decision developed, not whether GEM permanently prohibited me from receiving further flight instruction.

Read GEM's response
WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING

I am not claiming that my August 2 endorsement gave me an unconditional right to use GEM's aircraft.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

GEM controls its aircraft and can refuse to dispatch one for solo flight.

The separate issue is what happened to the existing solo authorization, why CFI Jose E. Capellan withdrew it, and how that decision evolved from the August 30 disagreement.

Understand the separate issues

I am not asking readers to accept conclusions the evidence cannot establish.

I am publishing the chronology, the competing explanations, the Garmin record, and the written responses so readers can decide for themselves what they think happened.

CENTRAL CHRONOLOGY

How the explanation developed

AUG 29

Dual flight. No communicated loss of local-solo readiness during the postflight debrief.

AUG 30

Aircraft-availability disagreement and discussion of other training options.

FIRST STATED BASIS

More than three weeks since my previous solo.

AFTER I QUESTIONED IT

KCLL and KAXH performance concerns became the stated basis for more dual instruction.

GLENN RESPONDED

GEM had no separate three-week solo-recency policy beyond applicable FAA requirements.

SCHEDULING DISCLOSURE

Endorsed students should view and book solo aircraft directly in Flight Schedule Pro.

I ASKED TO CONTINUE

I sought to build solo time using the direct-booking process Glenn described.

GLENN

Glenn stated that CFI Jose E. Capellan had withdrawn the endorsement.

GLENN CLARIFIED

GEM meant both aircraft-dispatch denial and withdrawal of the authorization represented by the endorsement.

CFI JOSE E. CAPELLAN

CFI Jose E. Capellan formally withdrew as my instructor and sent a signed Solo Privileges Withdrawn notice.

View the complete dated chronologyInspect the flight data

That progression is why I believe the conflict influenced the exercise of CFI discretion.

01
CFI JOSE E. CAPELLAN'S EXPLANATION

Safety concerns from the August 29 flight

CFI JOSE E. CAPELLAN'S POSITIONDOCUMENTED RECORD

CFI Jose E. Capellan wrote that I flew well overall but still required assistance. He stated that I became very slow on approach at KCLL, came in high at KAXH, and required coaching through short final to stabilize the approach.

He explained that solo flight required confidence that I could recognize and correct those situations independently. He said he wanted to see those situations handled consistently without assistance and expressly stated that his decision was based on the August 29 flight, not our August 30 morning conversation.

The Garmin analysis weakens the broad KCLL characterization and gives limited support to a late-high KAXH condition. It does not establish indicated airspeed, cockpit speech, coaching, control inputs, safety, or motive.

Read the full safety explanationEX-006EX-007Inspect the flight data
02
WHY I QUESTION THE ESCALATION

Why I believe the decision became reactive

MY ASSESSMENT

The chronology caused me to question whether the concerns CFI Jose E. Capellan later relied upon had actually changed my solo status during the August 29 flight, or whether they became solo-disqualifying only after the August 30 disagreement.

The available evidence does not establish CFI Jose E. Capellan's motive.

It does establish that the detailed performance rationale was not communicated until after I challenged the initial decision, while the Garmin data supports some elements of his later explanation and weakens others.

The later formal withdrawal of the instructor relationship and solo authorization documents how far the dispute ultimately escalated.

That timing and progression are why I believe the disagreement influenced how CFI Jose E. Capellan's CFI discretion was exercised.

SCOPE STATEMENT

Evidence, recollection, and assessment remain separate

This site does not claim that retaliation is proven, that CFI Jose E. Capellan fabricated a safety concern, that the corrected billing entries were intentional, or that the FAA has found a violation. CFI Jose E. Capellan's full safety explanation and GEM's mitigating facts remain visible. Unresolved matters are labeled.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Explore the record

View full chronologyInspect the flight dataRead the written responsesReview evidence

Full chronology

The sequence from endorsement through GEM's withdrawal position.

Open section

Solo and scheduling

The central account, the process discrepancy, and why I question the escalation.

Open section

Written responses

The safety, policy, scheduling, dispatch, and reassessment positions provided in the record.

Open section

Evidence register

The numbered primary record, accessible transcriptions, and source limits.

Open section