1. The pilots took a wrong turn at a major airport, taxied down towards the wrong end of the runway for a couple of minutes before making a u-turn. Don't think it was a runway change, since there were aircrafts rumbling past in the correct direction even when we were turning back.
Well, if you turned the wrong way, ATC would be onto you in an instant. I really doubt that you'd make it to 30 seconds...much less a couple of minutes. It can be very hard to work out why something is happening from the back. For instance, a taxi route might be available to aircraft with a wing span or weigh limit, which means that others could have to take a longer route. Performance limitations could force the use of a particular runway, even though everyone else is using something else. I've taken the long way at one airport, because it gave me a better turn onto a taxiway a few hundred metres away.
2. I can't see the weather or the radar obviously, but the use of the seat belt sign was majorly excessive. There appears no change of direction in each of those cases, so it appears to me that the crew was simply flicking on the switch whenever something appears on the radar, with no judgements being applied to the flight path or whether the turbulence (if any) would be severe. I would've given them the benefit of the doubt if that didn't happen 4 times over 7 hours at 35000 feet.
What, the seat belt came on 4 times and you didn't get any bumps? That's perfectly normal. Firstly, you don't have radar, and so can't actually see what is happening. Most times that I turn the signs on, we get no bumps, either because they aren't actually there, or because I've managed to miss them. If we get it right, sometimes we thread the needle through the most horrid stuff, without any nasty bumps...but go a mile or so to either side, and it will be a very different story. Of course, from the back, that smooth ride will simply seem to be seat belt overkill.
Think of it the other way too. If I don't turn it on, and you get to kiss the ceiling, who will you blame?
3. Had a landing in SYD with gusty wind, although the cross-wind component was quite low. I could hear the engines continuously reving up and down, hunting for the right airspeed, all the way down to the flare. Seems to me that it's either an over-reliance on the auto-throttle, or the pilot flying had very shaky hands. I might be wrong, but such over-reliance on the auto-throttle in such condition doesn't seem right to me? And given the constant changes in pitch and direction, it didn't feel like the approach was stabilised at any stage at all.
Gusty winds can be hard work, with constant pitch, roll and power changes. A stabilised approach doesn't mean that the attitude and power have reached a point of stability. It just means that you're on the correct glide path and track, with the attitude, sink rate, and speed within the approach tolerances. The attitude and power may be changing dramatically, constantly, to keep the aircraft in those spots. The whole thing is dynamic. Power additions, even within the flare, are just a normal day at the office.
) that means nose gear down/up = ding plus exit sign illuminated/extinguished?
