I now rarely contribute to PPRuNe but feel that the assertions contained in the article require a robust reply if only to prevent colleagues according undue weight to unattributed techniques.
I've read through the article and disagree with the suggestion that up elevator has any significant value.
Very little of the aircraft weight is supported by the nosewheel therefore up elevator will transfer little weight before the nose lifts and, as IAS reduces, the elevator will, in any case, become less effective. For those who have never turned e.g., a 747-400, over wet piano keys the sideskid even at low speed would come as a surprising indication of how little weight is supported by the nosewheels.
On the landing roll I certainly do not wish to remove weight from the nose wheel and reduce none-aerodynamic directional control.
Auto spoiler deployment on landing can cause a pronounced nose up pitching moment and a habit of applying nose up elevator too soon after landing could cause a tailscrape.
Up elevator will not PUSH the mainwheels into the runway; it will merely transfer the minimal load supported by the nosewheels (+ the elevator downforce; small at a large moment arm) to the mainwheels. After the nosewheel load reaches zero, the nose will rise.
Aquaplaning speed is proportional to sqr root of tyre inflation pressure. As weight increases the tyre footprint will increase BUT the footprint loading per unit square remains the same and therefore the aquaplaning speed will remain the same.
As runway friction decreases so the proportion of stopping effort becomes weighted toward aerodynamic and reverser drag to the point where only about 20% is due to braking and by what percentage that is influenced (UP OR DOWN) by elevator position I would not care to guess.
The wheel-barrowing effect is something which more commonly occurs at touchdown if flying too fast and consequently with the nose attitude too low.
<<Greater weight upon wheels will tend to cancel the "getting blown sideways" effect of a stonking crosswind component>> and, one has to say, increase the chance of weathercocking into wind.
<<Actually the up-elevator re-distributes the aircraft weight back towards the mainwheels, restoring a directionally stable tricycle geometry.>> I'm almost at a loss to understand what the writer means here. The aircraft CofG remains in the same place no matter what the pilot does. I think the writer is confusing light single piston ops or taildragger CofG position with big jets.
All of the foregoing applies to jet transport aircraft; not to military jets nor to rough grass strip operations.
So after 40 years in the business what do I think? Well I think that using the suggested technique will have you off the edge of the runway.
I'd prefer to fly the plane the manufacturers way without the latest DFO's little ways creeping in with the only changes being theatre dependant and other absolutely necessary exceptions.