Solo, scheduling, and communication
Why the chronology caused me to question whether the August 30 disagreement influenced the decisions that followed. The available record does not establish Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI)'s subjective motive.
I do not dispute that a CFI has broad responsibility to make conservative safety decisions. Jose Eduardo Capellan later identified legitimate instructional concerns from our August 29 flight.
My concern is how and when those concerns became grounds to terminate my solo activity. I do not recall Jose Eduardo Capellan telling me during the August 29 postflight debrief that he no longer considered me ready for local solo flight, and I have not located a contemporaneous written record reflecting such a statement. The following day, after I challenged the aircraft-scheduling process and discussed using other instructors or aircraft, my solo request was denied. The first stated basis was a gap of more than three weeks since my previous solo. The detailed performance explanation followed after I questioned that basis.
Solo scheduling and the flights I completed
The logbook records my first solo on August 2 and my second solo on August 3, 2026. The next three flights shown are entered as flight training, with no solo time. The original endorsements are available alongside the flight entries.
Dave’s account of the scheduling dilemma
I wanted solo flying that would fit around my other commitments. I recall having to send Jose Eduardo Capellan a TAF with each rental request. I also had commitments I could not cancel with less than 24 hours’ notice. By the time I had the weather information I needed to make a practical solo plan, that left little flexibility to rearrange my schedule. I recall Jose Eduardo Capellan repeatedly wanting to fly with me, and my attempts to arrange further solo flying becoming lessons with an instructor.
The logbook records the flights that took place. It does not record the original requests, scheduling constraints, or reasons for flying dual. Those parts of this scheduling account are my recollection. A training entry by itself does not establish that the lesson was required.
| Date | Recorded flight | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 1.3 hours of training, followed by the first solo: 0.7 hours. | EX-025 | |
| 0.6 hours of training, followed by the second solo: 0.8 hours. | EX-025 | |
| 1.8 hours of training: touch-and-goes and crosswind landings. No solo time recorded. | EX-026 | |
| 1.3 hours of training: touch-and-goes. No solo time recorded. | EX-026 | |
| Flight training labeled “CROSS COUNTRY (PRE-SOLO).” No solo time recorded. The handwritten hour figure is not transcribed because it is unclear. | EX-026 |
August 3 was 27 days before the August 30 solo request. During that interval, the logbook records training flights on August 8, 13, and 29. I include those entries to show the flights I completed while trying to arrange solo opportunities. They record the format of those flights, not why that format was chosen.
August 29: the flight and communication gap
Jose Eduardo 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 to stabilize the approach. I do not treat “flew great overall” as proof that every part of the flight met an independent solo standard.
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, as I turned from downwind to base. No cockpit recording currently corroborates the recalled statement about my height.
The Garmin analysis suggests the airplane was high later in the KAXH approach. These points are not necessarily inconsistent. An aircraft may be appropriately positioned during the downwind-to-base turn and become high later during base or final. The data helps narrow when the high condition appears to have developed.
I do not recall Jose Eduardo Capellan telling me during the August 29 postflight debrief that he no longer considered me ready for local solo flight, and I have not located a contemporaneous written record reflecting such a statement. The approach became one of the principal stated reasons for withholding solo only after the August 30 disagreement.
Garmin Record of the August 29 Flight
My Garmin MARQ Aviator recorded Garmin activity 24163424957. The original GPX contains 7,158 track points recorded at a typical interval of approximately one second from 9:52:27 a.m. to 12:06:01 p.m. CDT. It has been computationally analyzed.
The analysis describes ground speed over the selected KCLL segment. It does not resolve a brief slow event, an event outside that segment, or instructor intervention. At KAXH, it suggests a late high condition followed by steeper convergence toward the runway and therefore does not rebut every aspect of Jose Eduardo Capellan's criticism.
Garmin recorded position and altitude from which ground speed and descent estimates were derived. It did not record cockpit indicated airspeed, angle of attack, configuration, control inputs, instructor coaching, cockpit speech, or motive.
August 30: availability and other training options
I understood from my experience working with Jose Eduardo Capellan that I needed to go through him to determine aircraft availability and arrange solo aircraft time. Jose Eduardo Capellan told me that the GEM Aviation training aircraft would be available around 5:00 p.m.
I raised the recurring aircraft-availability issue and explained that I might need to use another school, another aircraft, or another instructor so I could fly more consistently. I do not characterize that discussion as a threat. I then decided to use the 5:00 p.m. opening Jose Eduardo Capellan had identified and requested the aircraft for solo practice.
The call log shows incoming calls from Jose Eduardo Capellan at 10:38 a.m. for six minutes and 11:35 a.m. for one minute. 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 Jose Eduardo Capellan's question about my most recent solo and included the three-week recency issue. The calls were not recorded.
The first stated basis for denial
Jose Eduardo Capellan asked when I had last soloed. The correct date was August 3, 27 days earlier. Jose Eduardo Capellan 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.
GEM Aviation later confirmed that it had no separate three-week solo-recency policy beyond applicable FAA requirements. No three-week limitation appeared on my endorsement. I do not recall Jose Eduardo Capellan telling me during the August 29 postflight debrief that the time gap or observed performance meant he no longer considered me ready for local solo flight, and I have not located a contemporaneous written record reflecting such a statement.
I do not claim that a CFI is legally prohibited from considering a 27-day gap or that my endorsement gave me an unconditional right to use GEM Aviation's aircraft.
KLBX and the revised local plan
My initial proposal included touch-and-goes at KLBX. After Jose Eduardo Capellan raised the other-airport issue, I accepted the concern, removed KLBX, and narrowed the proposed solo.
Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI)'s detailed safety explanation
After I asked what had changed since the previous day, Jose Eduardo Capellan stated that I flew well overall but still required assistance. He said I became very slow at KCLL, came in high at KAXH, and required coaching throughout short final to stabilize the approach.
He described those as typical errors after training gaps. He stated that solo required confidence that I could recognize and correct those situations independently and that he wanted to see them handled consistently without assistance. He expressly stated that the decision was based on the August 29 flight, not our morning conversation.
This is Jose Eduardo Capellan's strongest explanation, and I present it fairly. I do not recall Jose Eduardo Capellan telling me during the August 29 postflight debrief that those concerns meant he no longer considered me ready for local solo flight, and I have not located a contemporaneous written record reflecting such a statement. My question is why the detailed explanation emerged only after the August 30 disagreement.
Flight Schedule Pro discrepancy
Glenn later wrote that aircraft availability and solo scheduling were visible in Flight Schedule Pro, that endorsed students should book solo aircraft directly, and that my executive assistant could receive monitor-only access.
Glenn described a direct-booking process that differed materially from the process I understood and followed while working with Jose Eduardo Capellan. Had I understood that process earlier, much of the scheduling friction that preceded the August 30 dispute may have been avoided.
I do not claim that Jose Eduardo Capellan lied, deliberately concealed the system, or controlled scheduling to create billable work.
Escalation after management contact
After Glenn explained the direct-booking process, I stated that I wanted to continue building solo time under my existing endorsement using that process. Glenn then stated that Jose Eduardo Capellan had withdrawn the endorsement.
I asked whether GEM Aviation meant only that it would no longer dispatch its aircraft for solo flight or that Jose Eduardo Capellan was asserting that the existing logbook authorization itself had been withdrawn. Glenn confirmed both.
At 3:48 p.m. Glenn stated that Jose Eduardo Capellan had withdrawn the endorsement. At 4:21 p.m. I asked Glenn to clarify what “withdrawn” meant. At 6:10 p.m. Glenn confirmed both GEM Aviation's refusal to dispatch an aircraft for solo flight and withdrawal of the authorization represented by the existing endorsement.
Glenn also 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 Aviation offered another CFI to reassess my proficiency and potentially issue a new endorsement. GEM Aviation was also willing to continue dual instruction.
I do not state that the withdrawal or proposed notation was illegal. On September 3, a Houston FSDO Aviation Safety Inspector advised that I should not continue solo flight after the withdrawal was communicated and explained that a later logbook entry could document the suspension.
The inspector did not directly answer my follow-up about a different CFI issuing a later endorsement. However, the McHenry Legal Interpretation he cited states that a properly qualified instructor may issue or reissue a solo endorsement after satisfying the applicable training and proficiency requirements. That Part 61 authority does not compel GEM Aviation to rent or dispatch its aircraft.
Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI)'s formal withdrawal
Later on September 1, Jose Eduardo Capellan sent me an 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.
Jose Eduardo 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 Aviation aircraft would require remedial training, independent evaluation, and a new endorsement from another GEM Aviation instructor.
The formal documentation followed the escalation to management. This was materially different from the initial August 30 discussion, which had begun as a denial of a particular solo flight.
- Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) formally withdrew as my instructor.
- Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) formally withdrew the solo authorization he previously issued.
- Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) attributed the decision to proficiency and safety concerns.
- Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) informed GEM Aviation.
- GEM Aviation would no longer authorize solo operations without new training and evaluation.
- The action was formalized after the dispute had escalated.
- Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI)'s internal motive.
- Retaliation as a proven fact.
- Whether the withdrawal procedure was legally correct.
- Whether every safety concern Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) identified was valid or invalid.
- Whether the disagreement caused the withdrawal.
- An FAA finding about Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI)'s motive or whether any person violated a regulation.
Why the chronology raised questions for me
The evidence does not establish Jose Eduardo Capellan's motive, and the Garmin record does not eliminate all of his stated safety concerns.
What the record does establish is a progression.
I do not recall Jose Eduardo Capellan telling me during the August 29 postflight debrief that the concerns meant he no longer considered me ready for local solo flight, and I have not located a contemporaneous written record reflecting such a statement. Those concerns became the basis for denying solo after the August 30 scheduling disagreement.
After I questioned the initial explanation and raised the matter with GEM Aviation management, the dispute escalated further, ultimately resulting in Jose Eduardo Capellan formally terminating the instructor relationship and withdrawing the solo authorization he had previously issued.
That progression is why I question whether the August 30 disagreement influenced the decisions that followed. The available record does not establish Jose Eduardo Capellan's subjective motive.