Bottom line - the wind issues at Funchal are due to the prevailing wind directions, speeds, and the rapidly rising or uneven terrain north and west of the airport. Which creates gusts and turbulence, and directional instability for any airplane when they are present.
There is nothing that a longer runway does to mitigate those (a wider runway - perhaps 3x normal, might help ;) ).
There is also nothing in the improved NAV systems of aircraft since 1964 that mitigates the weather, since the landing still has to to be hand-flown (and the rougher the winds, the more likely that autoland limits are exceeded.)

The only "changes" that would count would be either changing the prevailing wind direction and speeds (you'd have to talk to The Creator about that) or bulldozing flat a couple of dozen cubic miles of Madeira's dramatic eastern coastline, which I expect would be worse for tourism than the occasional flight diversion.

A quick question: how many accidents has Funchal had that were totally contributed to (cross)wind?

I flew into FNC for years. Always thought the best thing they could do was to evacuate the place and let the NATO Sub Fleet use the place for target practice!!

Vortices and Downbursts
 

Upwind terrain can spawn vortices and downbursts in the downstream wind field.

The shear in a vortex can be twice the wind aloft:eek:

Only once I remeber a nice day there. Landing on 23 with the wind reported calm. Landing on 05 with the wind reported calm was as bumpy as with the wind reported just within limits. If I had any saying I would close down this airport and build hotels on the site. Then use Porto Santo as the main airport and use high speed ferries to take people to and from Madeira.

Madeira’s economy is totally dependant on tourism.
Could a review of the crosswind limits be a result of this concern?

It could be seen as a risk management issue. Reduce the x-wind restrictions and reduce the diversions; but then after the first accident due to winds, and possibly combined with rain, watch the effect on tourism.

air europe had a 757 bang the nose wheel up though the cockpit floor and I think monarch too had a prang (maybe that was GIB?)

as for catastrophes a newish type to FNC a TAP 727-200 landed long and went off the end down the cliff - very nasty - only a few survivors - runway was not extended back then.
TAP Flight 425 was a regular service from Brussels to Funchal with an en route stop at Lisbon. Weather conditions at Madeira were poor. It was raining and a 6/8 cumulus overcast at 1500 feet with a visibility of 3000m made for a challenging approach.
The first NDB approach to runway 24 was discontinued at the 'MAD' NDB because the crew hadn't established visual contact with the runway. Heavy rain showers were reported, but the flight crew reported seeing the runway lights when over the 'MAD' NDB for the second time. The aircraft touched down 2000 feet past the threshold with just 3000 feet runway length remaining. Thrust reversers were deployed and spoilers extended, but the 727 aquaplaned slightly and could not be stopped on the runway. The Boeing overran and plunged over a steep bank. It struck a stone bridge, shearing off the right wing. It then crashed almost vertically on to a beach about 130 feet below the level of the airport, bursting in flames.
The Commission of Inquiry established as a probable cause of the accident the impossibility to decelerate the aircraft and to stop in the length of the runway due to, probably, the following factors:
- Very bad weather conditions at the time of landing;
- Possible existence of conditions for hydroplaning;
- Landing at a speed of Vref + 19 knots;
- Landing long with a long "flare";
- Sudden directional correction after touchdown on the runway.

SATA (CH) super caravelle crashed into the sea turning final at night (2 captains - one checking the other for FNC which should have been done during daylight) some survivors

Local news website reporting that in the first four months of 2018 there were 496 diversions from FNC due wind outside limits. A remarkable number though I suspect they are counting all the codeshare flight numbers rather than aircraft.

when there was all the hoo ha St Helena quite a few posters on pprune thought they should have had TAP do the trials for that reason...

General consensus is to keep the current limits. Yep I agree but IMHO they are too high already.

I've been going since before the extension and other than a longer runway it's worse now, especially RW23. It's closer to the hills and the rotors off the stilts are worse than before. As for improvements in aeroplanes? Bollox! Lower wing loadings on newer types added to slower reacting FBW machines make it, if anything, worse now.

A bit like CAP 371 vs EASA limits. I'll keep a copy of the old limits and stick with scientifically derived figures not commercially driven ones. Me diverting? I couldn't give a sh1t about the pax complaining, after 35 years of flying I know my limits. So long as they are alive to complain, my job's a good'un.

I've had 4 flights into Funchal last year, only 1 landing :-) totally uneconomical. As FOs we are not allowed to be PFs but I do have experience flying into turbulent airports as PF, mainly Dubrovnik, Split and north parts of Norway like Evenes or Bodö. Personally I think Dubrovnik can be as bumpy as Funchal (if you think not I am guessing you only fly there during the summer and not winter when the Bora wind is prevailing with 40-70kt winds). Flying the bus as a local I was taught it had to be done with Auto Thrust off, set the value and do not chase the speed, we basically did not go idle before "firm" touchdown. This does require pilots to want to fly manually to be "in shape" and you get used to it. But if I had to land at Funchal with Autothrust going all over the place (eng going idle at 50ft due windshift) and with "rusty" handflying i would be ****scared!! So companies with SOP that do not allow pilots to fly raw data (When I say raw data I mean that, only pitch and thrust nothing else, no AT no bird) should not be allowed to fly to Funchal! So can a pilot from TAP, Croatia Airlines, Wideröe with multiple experience fly to Funchal (or equivalent) with increased wind limits? No problems! Can a lowcost 3000 hour captain that only flys magenta line (as some SOPs are) do it with increased limits and with same safety? I think not.

Wind Behavior Over Bridges
 

Here in Southern Alberta 50 kt winds are commonplace. There's an interesting effect transitioning from a bridge approach on an embankment to the bridge itself - as in a sudden increase in crosswind that can shift your car a couple feet over a in a blink of your eye.

I expect the elevated runway would be subject to the same effect. It would be interesting to record wind at various points along the runway and plug that data into sims.