Re: A/C off the runway in CPH
OVERTALK Having been involved with a few military and civilian aircraft trials relating to aerodynamic (nose up/back stick) landings, the answer to your proposition remains as given in the other threads; it is to follow the manufacturers procedures.
Do pilots really think that they have discovered something new in aerodynamic breaking which manufacturers have not considered? If there were better techniques, then we would all be using them in our over competitive industry. The core of many manufacturers’ advice is to concentrate on the important and most effective means of stopping the aircraft, particularly by using maximum braking with all wheels firmly on the ground. Just because the aircraft is on the ground does not mean that the controls are ineffective and will not change the load distribution, you can lift the nose in many aircraft types even against brakes and reverse. The HS 125 for example can be steered on the runway with aileron even though full lift dump is deployed.
Some naval aircraft, which for obvious reasons may not have had the best brakes, were allowed to use aerodynamic braking for land based operations. However, there were many pilots who misjudged the runway length such that when the nose was lowered / effective braking applied, insufficient runway remained. These pilots would have been better placed to use full brake, even with the risks of brake fade or overheating, which would have required a tow off the runway; that situation would have been better than a tow out of the mud.
Similarly, my limited trials experience in landing on snow confirmed that the ‘keep it simple / back to basics’ advice for stopping was the most effective. Get the aircraft on the ground, right place, and right speed, lower the nose, and use max brake. The aircraft would stop ‘when it was going to stop’. The ground roll landing distances were measured very accurately in the fresh snow.
For trials reasons the conditions were at the limit or in excess of any runway condition approved commercial operations; be assured that neither I nor anyone else has need of any more experience of sliding uncontrollable down the runway hoping that it was long enough. Furthermore, if the cross wind had exceeded 5 kts I doubt that the aircraft would have remained on the runway, as both rudder and steering were ineffective.
Empty Cruise Re your comment “… since WET is a well-defined case performance-wise.”
I think that if you study the DoT Canada reference, you will find that wet is not as well defined as might be thought and in some cases has similar risks to operations on a contaminated runway, and that is before you think of aquaplaning or wet/flooded conditions.