I can see how hard it must be to be a politician.
applied brakes and full back yoke - I felt the nose gear lighten
It seems that it had some effect, what use it would have been is another question.
I don't think I said or implied what the action of low speed pulling back on the runway, would actually achieve, but said that I would like any competent pilot to be able to ‘feel the crush' on the front end. Just one of those ‘fly by the seat of your pants' things. Feedback from the machine.
Of course big jets are relevant to performance discussions...it's just that the original post very specifically was not in that arena.
Just as an aside, I think Davis' first edition, was based on the 727, relevant to me at the time as I was transiting from the 1-11 to the three hole-er. But I have to say I'm not sure. I suppose it could have been the Trident. But the Hi-tail rear engine aircraft were all I was concerned with at that stage of my life. Anyway, it was his comments at the end of a later edition that were germane.
If anyone could provide a quick copy of that bit, it would say a lot about what I was trying to get across.
I feel sure that you would never be permitted to put short field landing techniques to the test. But what if...and checklists are full of What Ifs...what if you have a major hold fire in the cruise for example. All your options are used up, and you have to get on the ground. The only airfield available is way too short. If I were sitting in the back, I be comforted to know that the PF was going to set the aircraft up for touchdown sitting further back into the drag curve than normal. The one thing we had to do with the old timers was STOP them doing this. On the numbers, every time. But what it did show me, was just what could be achieved by a landing that looked like the shuttle touch down.
It uses up colossal amounts of energy. You start all your calculations on deceleration from a different datum. EDIT to say, of course I have no idea how this would affect your very sizable aircraft with advanced algorithms feeding the braking system. The basic aerodynamics are sound, but how they might negate advanced systems is another issue.
Another aside. They used to like to let the speed build up after an engine failure too, and it wasn't until we found the leaves in the undercarriage doors, were from a tree on the centre-line FOUR MILES AWAY, that some of the old codgers were convinced.
However, all of this is wishful thinking. For example, with X-wind landings, Later 737s have cowlings so near the ground that nothing but standard techniques are acceptable, while we could elect to have less flap (to keep it out of the way) and a boot full of top rudder. Some of the smoothest landings were done like that in lashing rain -- and on...or was it well past?...crosswind limits. Landing run? Counter to all logic, the crossed up airplane just devoured energy before the brakes had been touched. Earlier turn offs and less brake wear...always. But you're just not allowed to do this anymore.
Just one last thing. Someone did hit a the tail on the ground some time ago...they had had no experience of short landings in jet transport aircraft. Now they were landing on a very short field every day. The aircraft was a write off, and the airline was finished. If only they could have had the training I'm talking about. Demonstrating landings from + 10 to -10, and see the incredible difference that that 20 kts makes. Also, perhaps most important of all, seeing just how high the nose has to be before the tail hits, even on a firm landing.
Flying with the ignitors on and the stick shake going and your man saying this is what you'd have to do to hit the tail. Demonstrations like that for me, were burned into my memory for life. They were beyond price.