Peterh while i know you have often spoken about having good landing sites with respect i would once again caution such an assumtion. I hope you never put it to the test but as i have also said many times a good landing site at 2,000 feet can look less good at 1,000 feet and a whole lot less good at 500 feet. I use to land on a strip on the side of a hill on the up slope of a small valley. The strip was actually in pretty good nick but i would tell anyone the first few times were interesting. All you need is a few lumps and bumps and it adds to the interest. In fact there are some really good strips in france that will test your pfls.
In short perhaps i am wrong but i just worry a little that many assume a FL is a sinch. Plenty go wrong, and often its just bad luck, the field that looked so good at 2000 feet looked less good at 500 but by then the pilot was committed.
Are ppl trainees till taught what to look out for in field selection?