The central question is how the August 29 instructional concerns became grounds for ending solo activity after the August 30 scheduling dispute. Times shown are Central Time.
Training timeline expectation discussed
FIRSTHAND RECOLLECTION
I recall Jose Eduardo Capellan telling me that if I could “lock in,” complete the required 10 hours of solo time, and finish the remaining PPL requirements, I had a strong chance of completing my private pilot certificate by September, possibly by the end of August. I took that as encouragement and a practical training goal, not as a guarantee that I would pass a checkride or receive a certificate by a specific date.
I canceled an August vacation and tried to prioritize training around that timeline. That personal reliance is part of why the later scheduling and solo-authorization dispute mattered so much to me.
The original PA-28-140 solo endorsement signed by Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) is dated August 2. The logbook records a first solo of 0.7 hours on August 2 and a second solo of 0.8 hours on August 3, with separate flight-training entries on both dates. These pages identify August 3 as my most recent solo, 27 days before August 30. Redacted copies of the logbook entries and original endorsements are now available.
The next logbook page records 1.8 hours of flight training on August 8 for touch-and-goes and crosswind landings, and 1.3 hours on August 13 for touch-and-goes. Neither entry records solo time. A third training entry follows on August 29. The logbook records flights that occurred; it does not record the original booking requests or reasons for any changes.
During the August 29 return to KAXH, while we were in the traffic pattern preparing to land, Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) 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 GPX 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. It also suggests the airplane was high later in the KAXH approach and converged toward the runway on a steeper path. Those findings are not inconsistent with my recollection that Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) considered the altitude appropriate earlier at the downwind-to-base turn.
The data does not establish indicated airspeed, angle of attack, aircraft configuration, control inputs, cockpit speech, continuous coaching, approach safety, or motive.
I do not recall Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) telling me during the August 29 postflight debrief that the KCLL or KAXH concerns meant he no longer considered me ready for local solo flight, required another dual lesson before any further solo, or withdrew the existing endorsement, and I have not located a contemporaneous written record reflecting such a statement.
I understood that I needed to go through Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) to determine aircraft availability and arrange solo time. Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) identified a 5:00 p.m. opening. I raised the recurring availability issue and discussed using another school, another aircraft, or another instructor so I could fly more consistently. I then asked to use the 5:00 p.m. opening for solo practice. I do not characterize the discussion of other options as a threat.
The call log records a six-minute incoming call at 10:38 a.m. and a one-minute incoming call at 11:35 a.m. 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 (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI)'s question about my most recent solo and included the three-week recency issue. Neither call was recorded.
Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) asked when I had last flown solo. The correct date was August 3. He 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. I do not claim that a CFI is legally prohibited from considering a 27-day gap.
My original proposal included touch-and-goes at KLBX. After Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) raised the other-airport issue, I removed KLBX. I revised the request to depart KAXH, practice familiar maneuvers in the southwest practice area, return to KAXH, and conduct touch-and-goes only at KAXH.
Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) stated that I flew well overall but still required assistance, became very slow at KCLL, came in high at KAXH, and required coaching through short final. He said solo required confidence that I could recognize and correct those conditions independently. He expressly stated that his decision was based on the August 29 flight and not the morning conversation.
Glenn wrote that GEM Aviation ↗ had no separate solo-recency policy beyond applicable FAA requirements and that solo authorization remained at the discretion of the individual CFI.
Glenn wrote that endorsed students should view and book solo aircraft directly through Flight Schedule Pro. My experience with Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) had led me to believe that I needed to go through him for availability and solo scheduling. Glenn also stated that GEM Aviation ↗ instructors were independent contractors and that my executive assistant could receive monitor-only access. I regard this as a material discrepancy between the process I understood and the process GEM Aviation ↗ later described.
I asked to continue solo using GEM Aviation ↗'s stated process
DOCUMENTED RECORDMY ASSESSMENT
After Glenn described direct booking, I stated that I wanted to continue building solo time under the existing endorsement using the process he described. My written account explained why the preceding chronology felt reactive to me. That was my assessment, not proof of Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI)'s motive.
Glenn confirmed both GEM Aviation ↗'s refusal to dispatch an aircraft for solo flight and Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI)'s withdrawal of the authorization represented by the existing endorsement. He 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, if appropriate, issue a new endorsement.
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 (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) 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.
This was materially different from the initial August 30 discussion, which had begun as a denial of a particular solo flight.
My concern is when the concerns became solo-disqualifying, how that decision was communicated, and why the matter escalated from one denied solo request to the formal withdrawal of the instructor relationship and solo authorization after the dispute developed.
I do not recall Jose Eduardo Capellan (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) 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 (Pilot, Flight Instructor, CFI/CFII/IGI) formally terminating the instructor relationship and withdrawing the solo authorization he had previously issued.
FAA Aviation Safety Inspector Thomas R. Sherrill Jr. advised that I should not continue solo flight after the withdrawal was communicated, explained that a later logbook entry could document the suspension, and cited 14 CFR §61.89(a)(8) and the FAA's 2015 McHenry Legal Interpretation. I confirmed that my training was conducted under Part 61 and stated that I would not exercise solo privileges under the August 2 endorsement.
At 12:25 p.m. CDT, I asked whether another authorized CFI may independently evaluate me and issue a later endorsement of the same type that supersedes the prior authorization or suspension. This inspector has not directly responded to that follow-up.
The cited McHenry interpretation nevertheless states that any qualified instructor who satisfies the applicable training, proficiency, and endorsement requirements may reissue a solo endorsement and revise its limitations. It also explains that the amount of training may vary with the student's skill and experience.
A new endorsement addresses Part 61 authorization. It does not require GEM Aviation ↗ to rent or dispatch an aircraft.
The email provides individual FAA inspector guidance. It is not an adjudication, enforcement decision, or finding that any person violated a regulation.
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.
This records his stated position. It does not establish his subjective motive or independently verify the records he referenced.
Earlier in the training relationship, two instructional billing entries totaling $162.50 were corrected. The adjustments were processed and the resulting charges later reconciled. I do not claim that the errors were intentional. I include them only because repeated administrative errors affected my baseline confidence in the relationship.