Primary records and clearly labeled recollections

I sent a weather forecast and asked Jose to check whether the GEM training aircraft was available from approximately 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Jose replied that the aircraft was not available that day and asked what I wanted to do on the flight.

I explained that I wanted solo practice, including the Gulf Coast and touch-and-goes, and said aircraft availability was becoming a challenge.

Jose replied that the GEM training aircraft was the only aircraft covered by his endorsement.

I discussed other school or aircraft options and then asked Jose to reserve the GEM training aircraft from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Jose asked when I had last flown solo.

I first thought my prior solo might have been August 14, then wrote that it was August 2. I later reported August 3 as my most recent solo. The original logbook or scheduling record is not published here, so readers cannot independently verify that date from this exhibit.

Jose wrote that the prior solo was over three weeks earlier, that he was unable to authorize a solo flight, and that we would need to fly the traffic pattern at each airport I planned to visit before he would feel I was capable of conducting the solo flight.

I removed the other-airport portion and proposed departing KAXH, practicing familiar maneuvers in the southwest practice area, returning to KAXH, and conducting touch-and-goes there only.

I asked what had changed since the prior day and whether the decision was based on the morning conversation.

Jose wrote that I flew great overall.

He also wrote that I became very slow on approach at KCLL, came in high at KAXH, and required coaching through short final to stabilize the approach.

Jose described the approach issues as typical errors after training gaps.

He wrote that a solo flight required confidence that I could recognize and correct the situations independently.

He expressly stated that the decision was not based on our conversation that morning and was based on what he observed during the August 29 flight.

Jose continued that he needed to know I could consistently handle the flight without assistance.

In a later message, he confirmed seeing my billing email and said Glenn handled billing.

Incoming call from Jose at 10:38 a.m., duration six minutes.

Incoming call from Jose at 11:35 a.m., duration one minute.

The call log does not establish what was said during either call.

I wrote that I had been onsite from approximately 8:54 a.m. to 10:38 a.m. and questioned 2.5 instructional hours, including 1.5 hours of ground instruction.

The published image permanently removes unrelated personal and payment information.

Jose wrote that he would get Glenn to correct the invoice and offered the $97.50 as a credit to the card or toward the next lesson.

The record shows 2.2 hours of flight instruction and 1.3 hours of ground instruction on invoice #1307.

I asked Jose to review the ground-instruction entry and later requested a credit.

Jose wrote that the ground entry should have been 0.3 hours, not 1.3 hours, and that Glenn would handle the correction.

Jose wrote that everything had been taken care of and that the refund should appear within the next couple of days.

Glenn wrote that GEM would not schedule or dispatch an aircraft to me for solo flight until a current instructor evaluated my proficiency and issued a new endorsement.

He stated that Jose had withdrawn the prior authorization, asked me to present the logbook so the withdrawal could be noted, and offered another instructor to reassess me.

Glenn wrote that Jose had withdrawn the endorsement and that a new endorsement would be required before further solo flight in GEM aircraft.

I replied that I had not understood that I was expected to view and book solo aircraft directly through Flight Schedule Pro.

Glenn wrote that GEM instructors are independent contractors and that dual instruction is scheduled through the CFI.

He wrote that endorsed students should view and book solo aircraft directly through Flight Schedule Pro, and that my executive assistant could use my credentials or receive monitor-only access.

He again offered reassessment by another instructor.

I described the August 29 flight, the August 30 aircraft-availability discussion, my understanding that Jose knew I was a hobbyist, the original KLBX proposal, and the later narrowed local plan.

I described the decision as feeling reactive and arbitrary. That language was my interpretation, not a proven fact about motive.

My email recorded a concern that additional dual instruction would create billable time, while expressly stating that I could not prove a financial incentive and was not stating one as fact.

Glenn wrote that GEM had no separate solo policy beyond FAA requirements and that authorization rested with the individual CFI.

This site does not allege a financial motive.

Glenn referenced 14 CFR 61.87 and 61.89 and stated that solo flight remains within the individual CFI's discretion.

The preceding email asks GEM to clarify its policies and expectations.

Garmin activity 24163424957 records 7,158 track points from 9:52:27 a.m. to 12:06:01 p.m. CDT, a duration of approximately 2 hours, 13 minutes, and 34 seconds.

The original GPX file size is 2,399,851 bytes. Its recorded SHA-256 is A0C994C0F682B1989426AADF2F0D329F1D8AB92D3B38FA2EA62E8FCD807FD778.

Computational analysis identified a KCLL RWY 17 final and a KAXH RWY 09 final, calculated local altitude corrections, and derived ground-speed and descent-path measurements from sufficiently runway-aligned portions of the track.

At KCLL, the runway-aligned final showed an approximately 70.5-knot median ground speed and an estimated 3.1-degree descent path. These measurements describe the analyzed segment; they cannot establish indicated airspeed, stall margin, a brief slow event, or instructor intervention.

At KAXH, the late final showed an approximately 82.6-knot median ground speed and an estimated 4.5-degree path over the final 0.5 nautical mile. The trace is consistent with a late high condition followed by steeper convergence toward the runway.

Garmin TrackPointExtension data includes one heart-rate value for each of the 7,158 points. The full activity ranges from 60 to 114 beats per minute, with a median of 74. Selected KCLL final points range from 97 to 103, and selected KAXH final points range from 94 to 97.

The public 3D view shows a broad possible air-mass-speed band based on calculated ground speed plus or minus the nearby reported wind magnitude. This is a weather-bounded estimate, not true airspeed or indicated airspeed.

The analysis does not establish indicated airspeed, angle of attack, aircraft configuration, control inputs, instructor coaching, cockpit speech, approach safety, or motive.

Sender: CFI Jose Capellan. Received September 1, 2026, at 8:24 p.m. CDT. Email subject: Formal Withdrawal of Flight Instruction and Solo Privileges.

Jose stated that, effective September 1, 2026, he was withdrawing as my flight instructor and withdrawing the solo authorization he had previously provided.

He cited 14 CFR §61.87(c)(2), attributed the decision to his recent evaluation of my proficiency and safety, and stated that his authorization under the August 2 endorsement was withdrawn effective immediately.

He stated that GEM Aviation had been informed, that I could not conduct solo flight in GEM aircraft, and that further GEM solo operations would require remedial training, an independent evaluation, and a new endorsement from another GEM instructor.

The attached signed notice is titled Solo Privileges Withdrawn, is effective September 1, 2026, and states that it supersedes the prior 90-day endorsement dated August 2, 2026.

On September 3, 2026, Thomas R. Sherrill Jr., an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector with the Houston Flight Standards District Office, responded to my request for guidance.

He explained that when a flight instructor communicates that a student may no longer fly solo, the student should not continue solo flight under the prior endorsement. He noted that GEM's written communication provided a written instruction not to solo.

For Part 61 training, he cited 14 CFR §61.89(a)(8) in explaining why a student who had been told not to solo should not act as pilot in command by deciding to conduct the flight.

He cited the FAA's 2015 McHenry legal interpretation for the proposition that instructor-imposed limitations on a solo endorsement remain effective until they expire or are superseded by a later endorsement of the same type, and stated that the issuing instructor may revise solo limitations under §61.87.

He explained that a subsequent logbook entry could document the suspension using language stating that solo privileges are suspended pending reevaluation and further authorization by an authorized flight instructor.

He advised that I could work with the existing school to regain solo privileges or continue training with a different school.

I replied that GEM Aviation had conducted my training under Part 61, that I would not attempt to exercise solo privileges under the August 2 endorsement, and that I understood a later logbook entry could document the suspension.

I then asked whether another authorized CFI could independently evaluate me and, if satisfied, issue a new solo endorsement that supersedes the prior authorization or suspension, or whether action by the original issuing instructor is required first.

Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) stated that he was aware of the publication.

He reaffirmed that his decision to withdraw as my instructor and withdraw the previously authorized solo privileges was based on his assessment of my proficiency, consistency, and readiness to conduct solo flight safely.

He stated that he had retained relevant training records and documentation concerning my training and his decision.

He stated that he did not intend to engage in further discussion through that correspondence and that, if necessary, he would address specific published statements through appropriate channels.

He wished me the best in my continued flight training.

August 2: “PRE SOLO,” 1.3 hours in flight training, followed by “FIRST SOLO,” 0.7 hours in solo and PIC, with three landings on the solo entry.

August 3: “PRE SOLO TOUCH & GOs,” 0.6 hours in flight training, followed by “SECOND SOLO,” 0.8 hours in solo and PIC, with five landings on the solo entry.

Both solo entries show KAXH to KAXH in N57309. Earlier training entries remain visible for context. This is an accessible reading of the relevant handwritten rows.

August 8: touch-and-goes and crosswind landings, seven landings, 1.8 hours in flight training; no solo time entered.

August 13: touch-and-goes, eight landings, 1.3 hours in flight training; no solo time entered.

August 29: “CROSS COUNTRY (PRE-SOLO),” two landings, entries in flight training and cross-country; no solo time entered. The hour figure is left untranscribed because the handwriting is unclear.

A.3 Pre-solo aeronautical knowledge, dated July 25, 2026: the printed endorsement records completion of the pre-solo knowledge test for the PA28-140.

A.4 Pre-solo flight training, dated August 2, 2026: the printed endorsement records pre-solo training and the instructor’s determination of satisfactory proficiency and safety on the required maneuvers and procedures.

A.6 Solo flight, first 90 calendar-day period, dated August 2, 2026: the printed endorsement records the instructor’s determination of proficiency for solo flight in the PA28-140. Handwritten limitations remain visible in the source and are not exhaustively transcribed here.