FIRST-PERSON EVIDENCE ARCHIVE

My Experience With GEM Aviation and CFI Jose 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 Jose 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, Jose and I flew together. He later wrote that I “flew great overall,” while also identifying legitimate concerns involving approaches at KCLL and KAXH.

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

EVIDENTIARY REVIEW

Before You Draw a Conclusion

These questions concern my training experience with CFI Jose 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 as a proven fact.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

What I can document is the sequence.

On August 29, Jose 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with GEM management and attempted to use the direct-booking process Glenn later described, GEM stated that Jose had withdrawn the authorization represented by my existing endorsement.

Later that day, Jose formally withdrew as my flight instructor and issued a signed Solo Privileges Withdrawn notice.

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

Review the escalation timeline

EVIDENCE TESTDid the August 30 disagreement influence Jose'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 Jose or GEM

Jose identified specific KCLL and KAXH safety concerns.
Garmin provides some support for the late-high KAXH characterization.
A CFI has legitimate safety responsibilities, and Jose 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: Jose'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 that the safety concerns were fabricated.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

Jose 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 Jose'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 Jose or GEM

Jose 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 Jose 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 Jose'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 Jose covered the airspeed indicator and described my height as ‘perfect,’ or words to that effect, during the downwind-to-base turn.

Evidence supporting Jose or GEM

The Garmin trace gives limited support to Jose'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 Jose'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 that financial motive has been established.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

Additional dual instruction naturally creates additional paid CFI time.

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

The question that concerned me was why additional dual became necessary after the August 30 disagreement when Jose 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 Flight Schedule Pro access was deliberately misrepresented.

WHAT I CAN DOCUMENT

My experience working with Jose 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 Jose for solo availability and scheduling.
Glenn later described direct booking by endorsed students and monitor-only access for my executive assistant.

Evidence supporting Jose 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 Jose 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 Jose 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 Jose's later decision.

WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING

I am not claiming that CFI authority was ‘weaponized’ 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 Jose'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 Jose 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.

Jose 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 Jose had withdrawn the endorsement and confirmed both dispatch denial and withdrawal of the existing solo authorization.
Jose then formally ended the instructor relationship and issued a signed withdrawal notice.

Evidence supporting Jose or GEM

Jose 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: Jose'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.

Jose 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 Jose's 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 Jose 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 Jose 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 Jose had withdrawn the endorsement.

GLENN CLARIFIED

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

JOSE

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

View the complete dated chronology Inspect the flight data

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

JOSE'S EXPLANATION

Safety concerns from the August 29 flight

JOSE'S POSITIONDOCUMENTED RECORD

Jose 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 Jose's full explanation EX-006 EX-007 Inspect the flight data

WHY I QUESTION THE ESCALATION

Why I believe the decision became reactive

MY ASSESSMENT

The chronology caused me to question whether the concerns Jose 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 Jose'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 Jose's CFI discretion was exercised.

SCOPE STATEMENT

Evidence, recollection, and assessment remain separate

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

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Explore the record

View full chronology Inspect the flight data Read Jose and GEM's responses Review evidence

My Experience With GEM Aviation and CFI Jose Capellan

The question this record examines

Before You Draw a Conclusion

I am not claiming retaliation as a proven fact.

Evidence that raises the question

Evidence supporting Jose or GEM

I am not claiming that the safety concerns were fabricated.

Evidence that raises the question

Evidence supporting Jose or GEM

Evidence that raises the question

Evidence supporting Jose or GEM

I am not claiming that financial motive has been established.

I am not claiming that Flight Schedule Pro access was deliberately misrepresented.

Evidence that raises the question

Evidence supporting Jose or GEM

I am not claiming the billing errors were intentional.

Evidence that raises the question

Evidence supporting Jose or GEM

I am not claiming that CFI authority was ‘weaponized’ as an established fact.

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

Evidence that raises the question

Evidence supporting Jose or GEM

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

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

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

How the explanation developed

Safety concerns from the August 29 flight

Why I believe the decision became reactive

Evidence, recollection, and assessment remain separate

Explore the record

Full chronology

Solo and scheduling

Jose and GEM's responses

Evidence register