Although we're essentially on the same wavelength here, just a minor but important point of contention important that it be pointed out for the sake of clarity rather than argument.

What you say above is pertinent where there are two techniques both of which work efficiently and there is no valid justification for refusing to allow or accept the use of one or the other. We're agreed that this is the case in the issue under discussion. A similar example I can think of is preferred mode. But,....

I do think that any advantage or disadvantage might be briefly mentioned such as, ie: "experience has shown that it may take slightly longer to get used to method B, but I'm happy for you to learn to fly that way if that's acceptable to you? IME of most students requesting to learn something different from the mainstream, the two most common requests being mode or pinch control, are usually the more truly motivated, pro-active and better self-informed - although you have to watch out for that too as they frequently form a perception they know and understand more than they do precisely because of what they don't know. Or reducing it to cliches, a little knowledge is dangerous. Ignorance is bliss.

On the other hand, if we were speaking of "technique" with regards for instance crosswind landings, whilst there are a two common conventionally accepted but different techniques, in the knowledge that either can be quite difficult for the average student to get a handle on IRL, in the interest of the student's progress AND in the knowledge that one is easier than the other, to avoid confusing the student or risking him unnecessarily plateau or regress, it is normal and best to only brief and teach one - unless the student is sufficiently knowledgable and asks about the other in which case you might explain it to him, and perhaps, if he was having NO difficulty coping might even introduce him to it. But in the interest of facilitating the student's training and available/your time, would insist upon achieving competency of one method leaving the other to be covered at a later stage when the student had achieved a higher level of skill and understanding etc. This is an example of a situation where an instructor would be completely justified in insisting that a certain technique be used without necessity of justifying or rationalising his decision to the student other than by way of short explanation to effect "just trust me on this for now OK?". [sm=spinnyeyes.gif]

Similarly circuits, oval or rectangular? Of course, we all know that either technique works, but for purposes of consistency, standardsiation (at any particular site) ease of assimilation and coping for the average student we use one and insist upon it with valid reason. A short explanaton should suffice to satisfy the question from the interminably inquisitive, but if he were to continue to insist upon doing it his way in such an instance, he'd be finding another instructor's time to waste post-haste. [8D]