Would you mind expanding on the ground speed issue? I don't fly on days with 25 - 30 knot winds because I know my own limitations. I'm not familiar with the concept of changing flare height based on wind conditions. I'm always willing to learn.
I'm not great math teacher so I won't do the geometry here, but imagine looking at your glide path from a side view perspective, and holding the airspeed constant (which is required for this mental exercise).
(Just for clarity lets say you're watching yourself land from right to left.)
You're flying toward a runway and a particular power and pitch combination gives you a "perfect" 3 degree glide slope as viewed from the side. (Or pick any glide slope you like...) On a no-wind day.
The right triangle defined by the ground, the glide slope, and your constant decent path is fairly flat.
Now add wind from the left side of the picture.
Same airplane, same airspeed through the air, same power setting, but not the same glide path over the ground, because you're taking longer to get to the runway on the left side of the picture.
The right triangle and the glide path becomes a steeper slope.
Obviously, one can compensate for this behavior. But I assume the technique is based on a no-wind calculation of the glide path to determine the sighting points mathematically.
To maintain the same airspeed all the way to touchdown, the flare and touchdown points would have to compress together slightly.
It's not going to be a *huge* difference, but the geometry will definitely change slightly.
To make the point clearer with a goofy example, let's say you fly a 70 knot approach and you have a 70 knot headwind. (It's hurricane season as you make bad weather choices in life... Haha)
You adjust and decide you'd like to get to the airport sometime today so you fly a 120 knot approach. So you're headed to the runway at 40 knots.
That triangle is going to be pretty steep. A calculated target on the runway to flare is fine, but you'll touch down a lot sooner than the calculated touchdown point beyond the flare point, when you flare and start to pull that power off and your groundspeed quickly drops to zero for the landing.
(I also think you'll have a hard time taxiing in. You may just want to sit there and fly the airplane on the ground until the wind abates. Hahaha!)
Make sense?
The angle problem is why glider pilots don't want to be caught downwind with a strong wind, of their landing airport without enough altitude. They can't add power to flatten out that angle. They're not going to make the airport. Power pilots can flatten the descent rate with power.
The difference with small wind numbers isn't huge in the aiming points, but it's there. See how it all interrelates? You can fly a constant glide path at a constant airspeed, but the power setting will change. As will the amount of drag on the airframe when you start the flare and reduce power to land. So reduce gingerly and don't try to "stretch" to that second aim point and it'll land just fine.
Try to stretch and pull the nose up to get to that second aim point in a big headwind, and the airspeed will decay rapidly and you'll "plop" it on prior to that second aim point.
Nothing *wrong* with the technique. It's just that it's not going to seem "consistent" in higher wind conditions than you're flying in now.
(And really my angle argument is almost a moot point anyway because if and when you do find yourself flying in high winds someday, it often comes with gobs of mechanical turbulence near the surface and the wind is pretty unlikely to be constant, so your hands, feet, and throttle aren't going to be anywhere near "constant" anyway. You'll be working hard for that landing, moving and changing everything such that predicting the exact glide path -- and more importantly airspeed -- will be an exercise in averages.)
Fun stuff, isn't it? How all of the controls and their resulting changes in the aircraft's angle of attack, change the outcome in a fluid way?
I'm definitely not saying "don't use the technique". Finding a "groove" that works well in no or low wind days is right where you're at in the learning curve. That phrase "groove" is essentially saying you've found a sight picture and combination of pitch and power that results in a consistent approach glide path. And applying a technique on how to transition out of that glide path into a landing flare and touchdown is what you're pounding into your brain, right now. No harm done by the technique.
Just keep in the back of your mind that when you pull the power for the flare at the first aim point and are aiming for that second spot -- the touchdown spot -- on a heavy headwind day, the wind has "moved it closer". You'll land sooner than the second spot. And a tad harder if you don't leave a little more power in to flatten that angle. "Plop."
After a while of doing it, you'll just be able to see the runway rising up a little too quickly in your peripheral vision and you won't pull the power out that quick. Constant smooth adjustments to put the aircraft exactly where you want it.