Whilst I accept that the beats method is legitimate, I'm also a firm advocate of the CA method - I practice at least one a month, and teach that method.
One thing I have noticed, teaching it, is the number of students who will fly according to their perception of adherence to rule 5 (the UK low flying rules - min 500ft separation from people, vehicles or structures).
I lose track of the number of times I've said "if you are flying with me, it's my licence - if you have a real engine failure, it doesn't matter. So stop thinking about rule 5 and just fly to the field".
I do not however subscribe to the view in the title of this thread. I choose the field, I make suire I fly to it, and I am in command of the aircraft. The field is not in command of the aircraft, nor is fate.
Which takes me to what, in my opinion, is the single largest failing I see in pilots I am coaching (I won't say teaching in this context, as as a CRI I'm flying with people who are supposed to know this already - although I often doubt this) PFLs. It is students who trust to either me, or to fate. So they'll continue in a straight line hoping that the field they want will magically swim into view, or take less than they could in ensuring that the aeroplane is where it needs to be for a good field. Whilst I've never had anybody say it, there is often an air of affrontery - people who deep down think that I was not playing fair in failing to ensure that there would be a nice big into wind field there for them in clear sight. Is that what other instructors are doing?
G