In the last few posts there's been some good discussion in considering diversion to a more suitable airport. The consideration of a diversion to a more suitable airport forms a part of the decision making process in countless 'non-normal' circumstances, rangeing from better medical facilities for a sick passenger, to better RFF facilities when they might be needed, or, in line with this topic, longer (or more into wind) runways are available.
I think that the best point of all was brought up by guclu, who has indicated to us the means used by the test / certification pilot in establishing the Landing Distances required. The test / certification pilot uses somewhat aggressive techniques which are rarely used in day to day line operations, e.g. crossing the threshold at 50 feet and closing the Power/Thrust levers completely at that point, landing on the 300 M / 1000 ft touchdown point, through to the use of Maximum braking. We don't do this on every-day operations.
If an alternate airport / runway offering normal margins of Landing Distance is unavailable, and the pilot is then committed to landing on a runway with adequate, but less than the normal length margins available, I believe that he/she should bear in mind the means by which the demonstrated landing distances have been achieved, and operate accordingly.
That is - Close the Power / Thrust levers at the threshold, aggressively (if necessary) 'put' the aircraft on the touchdown markers, apply MAXIMUM braking, and use FULL reverse, all the way to a stop if necessary. The Reverse Thrust is a bonus, and will hopefully accomodate for any small deviations from non-perfect speed control, slight wind variations, etc. Bear in mind too, that, at the pre-flight planning stage, no credit can be taken for the Landing wind component, and any Headwind component upon arrival will also be a bonus.
In this case, passenger safety is the primary consideration, passenger comfort is an unaffordable luxury.
Regards,
Old Smokey