Three separate questions, no published legal conclusion
The issues raised after CFI Jose Capellan's withdrawal notice involve three distinct questions: GEM's dispatch decision, the instructor's safety judgment, and the regulatory status of an existing logbook endorsement.
GEM's aircraft-dispatch decision
I do not dispute GEM's authority to refuse dispatch of its aircraft. GEM stated that it would not schedule or dispatch a GEM aircraft to me for further solo flight.
See EX-015CFI safety discretion
I do not dispute a CFI's authority and responsibility to decline a particular solo flight based on safety or to reassess a student's proficiency. In his formal withdrawal, Jose cited 14 CFR §61.87(c)(2) and attributed his decision to his recent evaluation of my proficiency and safety.
See EX-022Existing endorsement status and documentation
GEM stated that Jose had withdrawn the authorization represented by the existing endorsement and requested that I present my logbook so the withdrawal could be noted. Jose later sent a formal withdrawal email and signed notice. The separate regulatory status and proper documentation of that existing logbook entry remain awaiting authoritative clarification.
Houston FSDO guidance request
I submitted a request to the Houston FSDO for guidance concerning the separate regulatory status and proper documentation of the existing logbook endorsement. No substantive FAA response had been received as of September 2, 2026.
Official reference material
These links are provided for the underlying federal requirements. This site does not offer a legal conclusion about the unresolved documentation question.