Responses from GEM Aviation and CFI Jose E. Capellan
Their stated positions are presented here with enough context to understand the basis they gave for the decision.
Safety and proficiency
CFI Jose E. Capellan later wrote that I “flew great overall,” but also identified a very slow approach at KCLL, a high approach at KAXH, and coaching on short final to stabilize the approach.
He described those as typical errors after training gaps. He stated that solo flight required confidence that I could recognize and correct those situations independently, and that he needed to know I could consistently handle the flight without assistance.
CFI Jose E. Capellan expressly wrote that his decision was not based on our morning conversation and was based on what he observed during the August 29 flight.
I recall that CFI Jose E. Capellan had covered the airspeed indicator for the KAXH approach and had described my height as “perfect,” or words to that effect, during the downwind-to-base turn. Those statements are not necessarily inconsistent with CFI Jose E. Capellan's later assessment. The aircraft could have been at an appropriate altitude at that point and become high later during base or final.
The original Garmin GPX has been computationally analyzed. The KCLL data weakens a broad characterization that I was very slow throughout the runway-aligned final. The KAXH trace suggests a late high condition followed by steeper convergence, giving limited support to that part of CFI Jose E. Capellan's later explanation.
The data does not establish indicated airspeed, angle of attack, aircraft configuration, control inputs, cockpit speech, continuous coaching, approach safety, or motive.
Solo policy and CFI discretion
Glenn wrote that GEM had no separate solo-recency policy beyond applicable FAA requirements. He also wrote that solo flight remained within the discretion of the individual CFI and referenced 14 CFR 61.87 and 61.89.
This account does not claim that CFI Jose E. Capellan violated the law merely by considering the 27-day gap or that my endorsement gave me an unconditional right to use GEM's aircraft.
Scheduling and instructor status
Glenn wrote that GEM's instructors were independent contractors, dual instruction was scheduled through the CFI, and endorsed students should view and book solo aircraft directly through Flight Schedule Pro. He stated that my executive assistant could use my credentials or receive monitor-only access.
That explains GEM's stated process. It also documents the difference between that process and my understanding while working with CFI Jose E. Capellan.
Dispatch, withdrawal, and reassessment
GEM stated that it would not dispatch its aircraft to me for solo flight, that CFI Jose E. Capellan had withdrawn the authorization represented by the existing endorsement, and that the prior proficiency determination was no longer effective for use of GEM aircraft.
GEM asked me to present the logbook so the withdrawal could be noted on the existing endorsement. It offered another CFI to reassess my proficiency and, if appropriate, issue a new endorsement.
This page reports GEM's position. It does not state that the proposed notation was unlawful or improper.
Formal withdrawal of instruction and solo authorization
In his September 1 email titled “Formal Withdrawal of Flight Instruction and Solo Privileges,” CFI Jose E. Capellan stated that he was withdrawing as my instructor and withdrawing the solo authorization he had issued on August 2.
CFI Jose E. Capellan cited 14 CFR §61.87(c)(2) and attributed the decision to his recent evaluation of my proficiency and safety. He stated that his authorization was withdrawn effective immediately, that GEM had been informed, and that further solo flight in GEM aircraft would require remedial training, an independent evaluation, and a new endorsement from another GEM instructor.
This is CFI Jose E. Capellan's stated basis. The email documents the scope and timing of the action, but it does not establish his internal motive or resolve the separate regulatory question.