Andrew Sarangan schrieb:

When you are on
downwind or base you are only guessing what your approach angle might
be. You are relying heavily on how high it "feels" and how far it
"feels",

I couldn't disagree more. You don't have to guess neither altitude nor
distance, because the angle at which you see the runway (or rather the
landing field) remains the same. You know at which angle you should see
the runway when you are on downwind, and if your downwind happens to be
nearer or farther, then just keep that same angle and your altitude will
authomatically adjust.

But if you rely on the altimeter, even if you happen to know the field
elevation, you have to know your distance to make the approach work. No
problem at your home base, where you know exactly where you are, but a
big problem with off field landings. And if you happen to have to make
an unusual approach, for whatever reason, your just plain lost if you're
relying on the altimeter.

You may have tought your method for years, but have you taught them with
true simulated outlandings, away from arfields, in unkonwn countryside,
where the student doesn't conveniently know the turn to base and where
the field elevation is a couple of hundred feet off from your departure
point? (I can see you chop the power at 2000 ft AGL and then tell the
student to grab the map and calculate the target altitude...)

I have dozens of true outlandings under my belt and it never even
occured to me to glance at the altimeter. It's outside the cockpit where
the things happen. Granted, the outlandings were in gliders, where you
have much better control over your glide path. Still, power pilots tend
to rely far too much on the gauges.