Oktas:
The SLA technique is normally called the "constant aspect method", it's been taught by the RAF for a long time and I believe was originally developed by Dickie Snell (but others here are more qualified to comment on that). A quick google will turn-up lots of hits.
Not all civvy clubs teach it but I think the popularity is spreading (rather like "point and power" on the approach - but let's not get the thread hijacked
). It seems to be much more reliable than the other methods because there's visual feedback all through the process, wind is compensated and because the full procedure is event-driven.
GusHB:
Turning into wind first makes it easier to pick a field because you're looking for one that's aligned parallel to the aircraft. The pattern, up to the start of the constant aspect bit, gives you the chance to assess the field from a couple of directions before committing.
If you can't find a good field (and you have the height to be picky) then you need to try and fly to a better area. Turning downwind certainly allows you to cover more distance: you may achieve a G/S of 90kts rather than 50kts, so for every 1000ft you will cover 1.5 miles downwind or 1 mile into wind. Is it significant? - it depends
Personally, from normal cruise heights, I'd prefer bloggs to fly the approach to the best landing area that can be seen rather than hopefully look for somewhere better. People have landed on forests, factory roofs and roads - in my opinion this is better than running out of sky while trundling downwind in the hope of finding somewhere.
I'm slightly surprised by this debate over what to do with the prop on SEPLs. If the engine has stopped or is at less than about 15" you ain't got control of the prop! It will go to fine pitch regardless of where you put the lever. Maybe the reason for selecting fully fine was to protect the fine pitch stops during engine warms.
HFD