Jose Eduardo Capellan's responses and supporting correspondence
Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI)'s stated reasons and written responses are presented with source links. GEM Aviation's correspondence provides supporting context and remains separately attributed from his position and my assessment.
Safety and proficiency
Jose Eduardo Capellan later wrote that I “flew great overall,” but also identified a very slow approach at KCLL, a high approach at KAXH, and coaching on short final to stabilize the approach.
He described those as typical errors after training gaps. He stated that solo flight required confidence that I could recognize and correct those situations independently, and that he needed to know I could consistently handle the flight without assistance.
Jose Eduardo Capellan expressly wrote that his decision was not based on our morning conversation and was based on what he observed during the August 29 flight.
During the August 29 return to KAXH, while we were in the traffic pattern preparing to land, Jose Eduardo Capellan covered my airspeed indicator as part of the instructional exercise. I recall that he described my height as “perfect,” or words to that effect, during the downwind-to-base turn. Those statements are not necessarily inconsistent with Jose Eduardo Capellan's later assessment. The aircraft could have been at an appropriate altitude at that point and become high later during base or final.
The original Garmin GPX has been computationally analyzed. The analyzed KCLL segment shows an approximately 70.5-knot median calculated ground speed, but does not resolve whether a brief slow event or instructor intervention occurred. The KAXH trace suggests a late high condition followed by steeper convergence, giving limited support to that part of Jose Eduardo Capellan's later explanation.
The data does not establish indicated airspeed, angle of attack, aircraft configuration, control inputs, cockpit speech, continuous coaching, approach safety, or motive.
Formal withdrawal of instruction and solo authorization
In his September 1 email titled “Formal Withdrawal of Flight Instruction and Solo Privileges,” Jose Eduardo Capellan stated that he was withdrawing as my instructor and withdrawing the solo authorization he had issued on August 2.
Jose Eduardo Capellan cited 14 CFR §61.87(c)(2) and attributed the decision to his recent evaluation of my proficiency and safety. He stated that his authorization was withdrawn effective immediately, that GEM Aviation had been informed, and that further solo flight in GEM Aviation aircraft would require remedial training, an independent evaluation, and a new endorsement from another GEM Aviation instructor.
This is Jose Eduardo Capellan's stated basis. The email documents the scope and timing of the action, but it does not establish his internal motive. The separate regulatory status is addressed through the Houston FSDO guidance and the cited McHenry Legal Interpretation.
September 3, 2026 Update
After being notified of this publication, Jose Eduardo Capellan responded and reaffirmed that his decision to withdraw flight instruction and the prior solo authorization was based on his assessment of my proficiency, consistency, and readiness to conduct solo flight safely.
He also stated that he had retained relevant training records and documentation concerning my training and his decision, and that he did not intend to engage in further discussion through that correspondence. He stated that, if necessary, he would address specific published statements through appropriate channels.
He wished me the best in my continued flight training.
This update is included to accurately reflect Jose Eduardo Capellan’s current stated position. It does not establish his subjective motive or independently verify the contents of the records he referenced.
Supporting correspondence from GEM Aviation
Solo policy and CFI discretion
Glenn wrote that GEM Aviation had no separate solo-recency policy beyond applicable FAA requirements. He also wrote that solo flight remained within the discretion of the individual CFI and referenced 14 CFR 61.87 and 61.89.
This account does not claim that Jose Eduardo Capellan violated the law merely by considering the 27-day gap or that my endorsement gave me an unconditional right to use GEM Aviation's aircraft.
Scheduling and instructor status
Glenn wrote that GEM Aviation's instructors were independent contractors, dual instruction was scheduled through the CFI, and endorsed students should view and book solo aircraft directly through Flight Schedule Pro. He stated that my executive assistant could use my credentials or receive monitor-only access.
That explains GEM Aviation's stated process. It also documents the difference between that process and my understanding while working with Jose Eduardo Capellan.
Dispatch, withdrawal, and reassessment
GEM Aviation stated that it would not dispatch its aircraft to me for solo flight, that Jose Eduardo Capellan had withdrawn the authorization represented by the existing endorsement, and that the prior proficiency determination was no longer effective for use of GEM Aviation aircraft.
GEM Aviation asked me to present the logbook so the withdrawal could be noted on the existing endorsement. It offered another CFI to reassess my proficiency and, if appropriate, issue a new endorsement.
This page reports GEM Aviation's position. It does not state that the proposed notation was unlawful or improper.
Why the chronology raised questions for me
I do not claim retaliation has been proven. I question whether the August 30 disagreement influenced the decisions that followed. The available record does not establish Jose Eduardo Capellan’s subjective motive.