lompaseo: the only one to read the question
.
WS I wonder how someone actually does measure brake wear and compare it before / after such policy is implemented (*). At the same time, many a task force / project group would certainly agree there is a brake wear increase, but the distinction between causality and confirmation bias is very hard to make. For sure, one who expects an increase is more likely to find one.
The manufacturer of the airframe I am current on declares that carbon brake wear is dependent on the number of applications and not on braking intensity, adding further that 75% of wear is attributable to taxi out with cooled brakes. So how much of those 25% does happen on the runway and will be affected by the policy? Next, the lowest wear per application is supposed to be at about 220 deg C indicated temp, consequently more strain during the rollout would give you less wear on taxi in. Hmm. Then there is the maybe-not-so-apocryphal story (heard of it on PPRuNe, must be true then) of a BA reverser / autobrake wear assesment which showed more wear with autobrake plus reversers ... on one particular type but with different results on another fleet!? While on the subject of autobrake: idle reverser policy will likely bring manatory autobrake, hence on long runways with far exit, where sensible pilots now may use no autobrake + idle, with ABRK + idle you will get a wear increase plus extended taxi time so $$ out of both windows... We could go on for pages like this.
Best of luck with the assigment, honestly. But I would not bet my personal money on the result irrespective of which one it was (even the one I agreed with)
To rub more salt, chances are the decision whether to proceed or not will neither be a technical one, nor of direct operating costs at all.
regards, FD
* implemented = announced? published ? trained ? executed by line pilots?