With any wind, there is always wind shear, and the more wind is reported by the tower, the more wind shear one can expect on short final. If say one has 30kt reported, there is likely to be 50kt at say 100ft, so your IAS will get a 20kt drop in the last few seconds. I know somebody who bent the front of a TB20 landing in those conditions and not expecting it 
Whether this has any bearing on this accident, I have no idea.
The PA46 hull seems to be quite strong, looking at this and other PA46 crashes.
@Graham I am only saying what a student PPL learns in France.
Maybe its a bit like the heading you calculate when following an approach course in a crosswind.
But I have also lost count of the number of aircraft I have watched approaching in strong headwinds and suddenly at 50ft feet you hear massive amounts of power being added for them to make the threshold.
The difference with Courchevel from many other runways is that it is wide and has an distinct upslope which can lead to optical illusions such as that of being too low and too fast.
Do not even look at the runway. The trick is to look into the wall in front and aim for that all the time on final. As you started at 7000ft next to the hill when turning on final that results in a rather consistent glideslope. Judging the glideslope by looking at the runway is much more difficult and the optical image differs from summer to winter.
not calculating the necessary increase in approach speed
With which wind information? There is a windsock at the threshold, there is another at the top. Often they do not agree at all and the wind in the approach sector can be completely different.
What @Peter describes is a steep wind gradient. I have only come across adding half the gust factor, but can appreciate if the wind is reported at 30 knots there is likely the equivalent of a gust component as you descend below the height of the anemometer. The loss of energy is the inertia which is obviously more for a heavier aircraft. If the wind goes from 30 knots to 15 knots, the aircraft airspeed will instantaneously reduce by 15 knots, although ground speed will be the same, until the aircraft accelerates.
An instantaneous 15 knots is quite a good shear, in a microburst more, and for a PA-46 it would consume the safety margin of 1.2x Vso which is used for calculating Vat.
The plentiful backcountry STOL videos should point out that for the most part they are filmed in calm conditions. Having said that, a low inertia Super Cub can land in pretty horrible conditions, perhaps only taxi with people hanging onto the wings.
Normally, I would get the wind information from the SIV but if only the windsock is available you would choose the one nearest the threshold. As I remember it is landing uphill, take off downhill.
It’s not unusual to see recommendations for adding half the average headwind and all of the gust factor to the approach speed. But even if you do this, you should have bled off most of the additional speed when you reach the threshold.
Another point wrt what we learn in Mountain rating is a low pass to check the field and wind , something that can’t be done at Courchevel, because you have a hard runway and afis agent, that can’t see gust and draft. But I reckon qualified pilot should coop with.
About Kve , i have seen as many formulas as type of planes. I think that formula for b737 may not be the same as a cub.
@Airborne_Again yes you should have bled off most if not all the extra speed by the time you touch at the threshold. The calculation is used to make sure you get to the threshold and not touch down before it or stall onto the runway by trying to stretch the descent a few metres.
you should have bled off most if not all the extra speed by the time you touch at the threshold
A colleague ex ETFS always would admonish a fellow pilot if he suggested bleeding off of airspeed/power: ‘ there is no bleeding in my cockpit’ :)
