“Speed additives …they have always been like that…”
Yes, but when compared with the margins applied to modern commercial aircraft then I wonder if further justifying explanation is now required.
Landing performance is based on Vref, which requires satisfactory handling characteristics (not necessarily ‘easy’, but safe and with acceptable workload). Also there is a demonstrated landing margin of Vref-5 at the threshold, without power adjustment, and without a tail strike.
For an approach at Vref there is a 20% margin to stall warning and a further 10% to the actual stall; this represents approximately 20/30 kts for most aircraft.
Most manufacturers have a small addition to Vref for the approach which accommodates errors in flight accuracy (flight technical error).
The resultant approach speed Vref+5, +/- 5 (basic bug speed) is therefore a target approach-and-landing speed. However, many operators use this as a minimum speed and thus build in a further speed addition, which may not be necessary.
Any wind additions increase the basic bug speed, and if this is also used as minimum, vice a target speed, it will provide a more than sufficient margin during an approach.
What are the most likely windspeed shears and gust extremes?
Are modern airframe designs more able to accommodate these; are modern engine response times / auto throttles more able to maintain speed?
Are operators increasing approach speed more that could be justified and thus this bias is contributing to an apparent increase of overrun incidents?