411A your post raises an interesting aspect of human nature with respect to the apparent ease, safety, or ‘good’ quality of an operation, particularly during approach and landing
For any given airfield length and set of fixed conditions (wind, weather, aircraft type, weight, etc), the risks of that operation are encompassed (accepted) by the certification rules - it is safe. Thus, why do pilots decide to change an operating procedure because it appears to be better?
For approaches during windy / gusty conditions the industry accepts (in some cases requires) a speed increase as it adds to or maintains the existing margins of a safe operation. Flight in these conditions at normal approach speed may have increased the risk due to reduced stall margin or difficult aircraft handling.
However, for a landing in gusty conditions whilst maintaining the same safety margins, the threshold speed should be the standard value. A balance of risk is required between the speed reduction and the probability of encountering the conditions (time of exposure). In practice, I suspect that for non-limiting runways, the increased risk from landing at higher than normal speeds is hidden by the spare runway length. This complacency is only highlighted in more limiting conditions, shorter runway or wet / contaminated surfaces, but here again some aircraft have ‘emergency reverse’. (How often is emergency reverse used, should it be reported? It could identify an increased risk of operation – FDM / FOQA will tell). The accident statistics highlight the continuing safety problems during landing and those of over-runs.
Why then should a pilot change the operating / landing technique just because the runway is limiting. The aircraft is certificated to operate into that runway with the appropriate level of risk – it is safe. Whereas a change in procedure may increase the overall risk of the landing due to an un-stabilised approach, reduced stall margin or reduced obstacle clearance. Whilst it is quite feasible to approach at Vref +25 and cross the threshold at Vref+5, this operation increases the workload from that normally accepted (assumed by certification), thus the overall risk of the operation increases. Those manufacturers who advise a speed increase during gusty conditions try to balance the risks by their choice of speed additives and change in operating technique. Some add warnings as to the danger of higher than normal threshold speed and others publish additions to the landing distance required.
A possible reason that the Tristar appeared so good and that the manufacturer approved the procedure was that the aircraft used direct lift control, which I understand was also integrated with the autothrottle. However, just because one aircraft / operation is good does not mean that the technique is universally good. All of us need to be aware of using any false premise of an apparent safer operation (“I know better”); if in doubt follow the certification rules and the manufactures advice, and if you don’t know then don’t make it up.