If the operation necessitates anything other than normal operations with more restrictive tolerances, then the public safety is being compromised by the workaround. We used to operate a baby B747 into an interesting airport, and there were very specific criteria for completing a touchdown, but the flight path, MEHT/TCH and Vapp were not altered, it was an exactly standard flight profile, but with very specific decision tolerances.
When a decision to alter the procedure due to a perception of a specific threat arises, then the answer is to revisit what it being attempted. It should not be up to the pilot to use an untrained, and unapproved technique in order to satisfy perceptions of risk, there be dragons in that direction, and the liability reverts to the crew, well, they are always the first at the accident site anyway.
An Excellent post by FDR ( as usual ). If there is a serious incident or accident, one of the first things the regulatory body asks the cockpit crew is “Were you trained for this”.
If not, why did you do it. Most of the times, “Normalization of Deviance “ sets in a particular operation ( if it’s challenging) and most crews do it even though not specifically trained for it.
If there’s FOQA , the crew should be called in and the operation revisited.
For landing on Wet /Contaminated Runways, SAFO 19003 ( FAA ) is important reading.