The central question is how the August 29 instructional concerns became grounds for ending solo activity after the August 30 scheduling dispute. Times shown are Central Time.
CFI Jose E. Capellan issued my PA-28-140 solo endorsement on August 2. I completed solo flights on August 2 and August 3. The August 3 flight was my most recent solo, 27 days before August 30.
CFI Jose E. Capellan and I flew together. Garmin activity 24163424957 records approximately 2 hours, 13 minutes, and 34 seconds of flight activity. 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.
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 GPX analysis materially weakens a generalized characterization that the airplane was very slow throughout the KCLL runway-aligned final. It also suggests the airplane was high later in the KAXH approach and converged toward the runway on a steeper path. Those findings are not inconsistent with my recollection that CFI Jose E. Capellan considered the altitude appropriate earlier at the downwind-to-base turn.
The data does not establish indicated airspeed, angle of attack, aircraft configuration, control inputs, cockpit speech, continuous coaching, approach safety, or motive.
During the postflight discussion, I was not told that the KCLL or KAXH concerns had ended my local-solo readiness, required another dual lesson before any further solo, or withdrawn the existing endorsement.
I understood that I needed to go through CFI Jose E. Capellan to determine aircraft availability and arrange solo time. CFI Jose E. Capellan identified a 5:00 p.m. opening. I raised the recurring availability issue and discussed using another school, another aircraft, or another instructor so I could fly more consistently. I then asked to use the 5:00 p.m. opening for solo practice. I do not characterize the discussion of other options as a threat.
The call log records a six-minute incoming call at 10:38 a.m. and a one-minute incoming call at 11:35 a.m. 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. Neither call was recorded.
CFI Jose E. Capellan asked when I had last flown solo. The correct date was August 3. He 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. I do not claim that a CFI is legally prohibited from considering a 27-day gap.
My original proposal included touch-and-goes at KLBX. After CFI Jose E. Capellan raised the other-airport issue, I removed KLBX. I revised the request to depart KAXH, practice familiar maneuvers in the southwest practice area, return to KAXH, and conduct touch-and-goes only at KAXH.
CFI Jose E. Capellan stated that I flew well overall but still required assistance, became very slow at KCLL, came in high at KAXH, and required coaching through short final. He said solo required confidence that I could recognize and correct those conditions independently. He expressly stated that his decision was based on the August 29 flight and not the morning conversation.
Glenn wrote that endorsed students should view and book solo aircraft directly through Flight Schedule Pro. My experience with CFI Jose E. Capellan had led me to believe that I needed to go through him for availability and solo scheduling. Glenn also stated that GEM instructors were independent contractors and that my executive assistant could receive monitor-only access. I regard this as a material discrepancy between the process I understood and the process GEM later described.
After Glenn described direct booking, I stated that I wanted to continue building solo time under the existing endorsement using the process he described. My written account explained why the preceding chronology felt reactive to me. That was my assessment, not proof of CFI Jose E. Capellan's motive.
Glenn wrote that CFI Jose E. Capellan had withdrawn the endorsement and that a new endorsement would be required before further solo flight in GEM aircraft.
Glenn confirmed both GEM's refusal to dispatch an aircraft for solo flight and CFI Jose E. Capellan's withdrawal of the authorization represented by the existing endorsement. He 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, if appropriate, issue a new endorsement.
Later on September 1, CFI Jose E. Capellan sent me a formal 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.
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 stated that the withdrawal was based on his recent evaluation of my proficiency and safety.
He had previously identified concerns involving a slow approach at KCLL, a high approach at KAXH, and the need for coaching on short final.
CFI Jose E. Capellan's position is that solo flight requires confidence that a student can recognize and correct such situations independently.
I take those concerns seriously.
My concern is not that CFI Jose E. Capellan was prohibited from making a conservative safety decision.
My concern is when the concerns became solo-disqualifying, how that decision was communicated, and why the matter escalated from one denied solo request to the formal withdrawal of the instructor relationship and solo authorization after the dispute developed.
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.
I submitted a request for regulatory guidance to the Houston FSDO concerning the separate status and proper documentation of the existing logbook endorsement. No substantive response had been received as of September 2, 2026.
Earlier in the training relationship, two instructional billing entries totaling $162.50 were corrected. The adjustments were processed and the resulting charges later reconciled. I do not claim that the errors were intentional. I include them only because repeated administrative errors affected my baseline confidence in the relationship.