Mansfield, #61, some interesting items.
For info; JAR is now EU-OPS, but the text is essentially the same.
EU-OPS and FAR 121 are slowly being harmonized; the landing requirements are essentially identical and originate from the same certification requirements CS 25.125 / FAR 25.125. The only significant difference is in contaminated operations where EU-OPS 1.520 requires accountability but FARs do not. However, FAA SAFO 06012 does refer to the difference.
CS 25.1591 ‘Contaminated Runway Certification’ is well worth reading as it provides most of the definitions and assumptions for the operation; one significant point is for operators to determine whether reverse is credited or not.
Pitch Up Authority, re the choice of runway direction, perhaps the head/tailwind – groundspeed might be the dominant consideration. After all it is energy (speed squared), which has to be dissipated within the runway length.
Re There is no need to use max brakes but brake as function of runway length.
Perhaps this is a bold generalisation as it assumes that pilots know what the limiting landing distance is and thus the additional safety margin available from a longer runway.
Unless an operator’s landing performance covers a range of runway distances (usually only the distance of the chosen runway), the crew will only know if they meet the landing requirements or not - yes / no choice.
Landing data is provided for weight (landing mass). A better guide as to how hard to brake can be obtained by comparing the max allowable landing weight (on a given runway) with the actual landing weight, but this too might not consider additional margins on very long runways.
Weight comparison provides some guidance as to the safety margin available, but this still requires experience, and consideration of runway conditions and other variables before choosing a level of braking. Some data (and aircraft systems) provide some of this information, but all, as do humans, have limits of not knowing the precise nature of the conditions, thus rules of thumb such as initially brake harder than you judge might apply.
From your post #60, the reliance on reverse might be foolhardy (cf Midway accident). Normal landing performance rarely credits reverse thrust for good reason. Being ‘independent of the braking system’ is a risky mindset, particularly on slippery runways after cancelling reverse.
Similarly, you may have generalised the phrase ‘the advisory data for slippery runways’, but in EU-land the data required is much more than advisory; see above EU-OPS 1.520, CS 25.1591.