Solo, scheduling, and communication
Why I came to believe that the August 30 disagreement influenced how CFI Jose E. Capellan exercised his discretion over my solo activity.
I do not dispute that a CFI has broad responsibility to make conservative safety decisions. CFI Jose E. Capellan later identified legitimate instructional concerns from our August 29 flight.
My concern is how and when those concerns became grounds to terminate my solo activity. I was not told during the August 29 postflight debrief that my local-solo readiness had ended. The following day, after I challenged the aircraft-scheduling process and discussed using other instructors or aircraft, my solo request was denied. The first stated basis was a gap of more than three weeks since my previous solo. The detailed performance explanation followed after I questioned that basis.
August 29: the flight and communication gap
CFI Jose E. Capellan later wrote that I “flew great overall,” while also stating that I became very slow on approach at KCLL, came in high at KAXH, and required coaching through short final to stabilize the approach. I do not treat “flew great overall” as proof that every part of the flight met an independent solo standard.
I recall that CFI Jose E. Capellan intentionally covered the airspeed indicator during the KAXH return and described my height as “perfect,” or words to that effect, as I turned from downwind to base. No cockpit recording currently corroborates either recollection.
The Garmin analysis suggests the airplane was high later in the KAXH approach. These points are not necessarily inconsistent. An aircraft may be appropriately positioned during the downwind-to-base turn and become high later during base or final. The data helps narrow when the high condition appears to have developed.
The central issue remains that this approach was not communicated during the August 29 debrief as ending my local-solo readiness. It became one of the principal stated reasons for withholding solo only after the August 30 disagreement.
Garmin Record of the August 29 Flight
My Garmin MARQ Aviator recorded Garmin activity 24163424957. The original GPX contains 7,158 track points recorded at a typical interval of approximately one second from 9:52:27 a.m. to 12:06:01 p.m. CDT. It has been computationally analyzed.
The analysis materially weakens a generalized characterization that the airplane was very slow throughout the KCLL runway-aligned final. At KAXH, it suggests a late high condition followed by steeper convergence toward the runway and therefore does not rebut every aspect of CFI Jose E. Capellan's criticism.
Garmin recorded position and altitude from which ground speed and descent estimates were derived. It did not record cockpit indicated airspeed, angle of attack, configuration, control inputs, instructor coaching, cockpit speech, or motive.
August 30: availability and other training options
I understood from my experience working with CFI Jose E. Capellan that I needed to go through him to determine aircraft availability and arrange solo aircraft time. CFI Jose E. Capellan told me that the GEM training aircraft would be available around 5:00 p.m.
I raised the recurring aircraft-availability issue and explained that I might need to use another school, another aircraft, or another instructor so I could fly more consistently. I do not characterize that discussion as a threat. I then decided to use the 5:00 p.m. opening CFI Jose E. Capellan had identified and requested the aircraft for solo practice.
The call log shows incoming calls from CFI Jose E. Capellan at 10:38 a.m. for six minutes and 11:35 a.m. for one minute. I recall that the first call concerned the 5:00 p.m. opening and did not include a proficiency discussion. I recall that the second call followed CFI Jose E. Capellan's question about my most recent solo and included the three-week recency issue. The calls were not recorded.
The first stated basis for denial
CFI Jose E. Capellan asked when I had last soloed. The correct date was August 3, 27 days earlier. CFI Jose E. Capellan then wrote, “That’s over 3 weeks ago. Unable to authorize a solo flight.” This was the first stated basis for the August 30 denial.
GEM later confirmed that it had no separate three-week solo-recency policy beyond applicable FAA requirements. No three-week limitation appeared on my endorsement. CFI Jose E. Capellan had flown with me the previous day and had not told me during that debrief that the time gap or observed performance had ended my local-solo readiness.
I do not claim that a CFI is legally prohibited from considering a 27-day gap or that my endorsement gave me an unconditional right to use GEM's aircraft.
KLBX and the revised local plan
My initial proposal included touch-and-goes at KLBX. After CFI Jose E. Capellan raised the other-airport issue, I accepted the concern, removed KLBX, and narrowed the proposed solo.
- Depart KAXH.
- Fly to the southwest practice area.
- Practice familiar maneuvers.
- Return to KAXH.
- Conduct touch-and-goes only at KAXH.
CFI Jose E. Capellan's detailed safety explanation
After I asked what had changed since the previous day, CFI Jose E. Capellan stated that I flew well overall but still required assistance. He said I became very slow at KCLL, came in high at KAXH, and required coaching throughout short final to stabilize the approach.
He described those as typical errors after training gaps. He stated that solo required confidence that I could recognize and correct those situations independently and that he wanted to see them handled consistently without assistance. He expressly stated that the decision was based on the August 29 flight, not our morning conversation.
This is CFI Jose E. Capellan's strongest explanation, and I present it fairly. My question is why those concerns were not communicated during the August 29 debrief as ending my solo readiness and why the detailed explanation emerged only after the August 30 disagreement.
Flight Schedule Pro discrepancy
Glenn later wrote that aircraft availability and solo scheduling were visible in Flight Schedule Pro, that endorsed students should book solo aircraft directly, and that my executive assistant could receive monitor-only access.
Glenn described a direct-booking process that differed materially from the process I understood and followed while working with CFI Jose E. Capellan. Had I understood that process earlier, much of the scheduling friction that preceded the August 30 dispute may have been avoided.
I do not claim that CFI Jose E. Capellan lied, deliberately concealed the system, or controlled scheduling to create billable work.
Escalation after management contact
After Glenn explained the direct-booking process, I stated that I wanted to continue building solo time under my existing endorsement using that process. Glenn then stated that CFI Jose E. Capellan had withdrawn the endorsement.
I asked whether GEM meant only that it would no longer dispatch its aircraft for solo flight or that CFI Jose E. Capellan was asserting that the existing logbook authorization itself had been withdrawn. Glenn confirmed both.
At 3:48 p.m. Glenn stated that CFI Jose E. Capellan had withdrawn the endorsement. At 4:21 p.m. I asked Glenn to clarify what “withdrawn” meant. At 6:10 p.m. Glenn confirmed both GEM's refusal to dispatch an aircraft for solo flight and withdrawal of the authorization represented by the existing endorsement.
Glenn also stated that the prior proficiency determination was no longer effective, the original logbook entry had not yet been lined out, and I should present the logbook so the withdrawal could be noted. GEM offered another CFI to reassess my proficiency and potentially issue a new endorsement. GEM was also willing to continue dual instruction.
I do not state that the withdrawal or proposed notation was illegal. The separate FAA procedural question remains unresolved.
CFI Jose E. Capellan's formal withdrawal
Later on September 1, CFI Jose E. Capellan sent me an email titled “Formal Withdrawal of Flight Instruction and Solo Privileges.” He stated that he was withdrawing as my flight instructor and withdrawing the solo authorization associated with the endorsement he had issued on August 2.
CFI Jose E. Capellan stated that his decision was based on his recent evaluation of my proficiency and safety. He cited 14 CFR §61.87(c)(2), stated that his authorization was withdrawn effective immediately, informed GEM Aviation of the decision, and stated that further solo flight in GEM aircraft would require remedial training, independent evaluation, and a new endorsement from another GEM instructor.
The formal documentation followed the escalation to management. This was materially different from the initial August 30 discussion, which had begun as a denial of a particular solo flight.
- CFI Jose E. Capellan formally withdrew as my instructor.
- CFI Jose E. Capellan formally withdrew the solo authorization he previously issued.
- CFI Jose E. Capellan attributed the decision to proficiency and safety concerns.
- CFI Jose E. Capellan informed GEM.
- GEM would no longer authorize solo operations without new training and evaluation.
- The action was formalized after the dispute had escalated.
- CFI Jose E. Capellan's internal motive.
- Retaliation as a proven fact.
- Whether the withdrawal procedure was legally correct.
- Whether every safety concern CFI Jose E. Capellan identified was valid or invalid.
- Whether the disagreement caused the withdrawal.
- Whether the FAA agrees with CFI Jose E. Capellan's interpretation.
Why I believe the conflict influenced the decision
The evidence does not establish CFI Jose E. Capellan's motive, and the Garmin record does not eliminate all of his stated safety concerns.
What the record does establish is a progression.
Concerns that were not communicated to me during the August 29 debrief as ending my solo readiness became the basis for denying solo only after the August 30 scheduling disagreement.
After I questioned the initial explanation and raised the matter with GEM management, the dispute escalated further, ultimately resulting in CFI Jose E. Capellan formally terminating the instructor relationship and withdrawing the solo authorization he had previously issued.
That timing and escalation are why I believe the disagreement influenced how his CFI discretion was exercised.