<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The incident was raised by the captain and brought to light a similar incident, in 1995, when a cellphone in a cockpit flight bag rang while the aircraft was in cruise and on autopilot. The aircraft rolled 30 degrees before NAV was cancelled and HDG selected. Severity of the incident was reported as moderate.
One of the most recent cases was confirmed when the crew of a B767 on approach to Osaka reported an FMC display data corruption. The flight attendants discovered a passenger using his cellphone, and when it was switched off the FMC displays were restored.</font>
Globaliser, you still aren't getting it. Take, the second situation, for example. They saw a problem and then investigated and found a passenger was on the phone. What about all the times they didn't see a problem and so didn't bother to look for a passenger on the phone? Also, don't you suppose the cockpit crew was trying 5 other things to fix the data problem, and don't you suppose it was more likely that one of those things fixed it rather than an FA wandering around and then walking all the way back to the cockpit and mentioning it?
In the first example, they don't report if it happened immediately or if they could repeat the exact same thing by calling the phone again.
There is a reason why proof is required, and that's because anecdotes lie. Ask anyone in tech support if observed correlations mean anything at all, and they'll laugh at you.
Dogs think that their barking drives away the mailman, even though he actually leaves because he's done dropping of the mail. At least the dogs have consistency on their side in that argument (i.e. the dog always barks and the mailman always leaves). You only have 3 examples out of thousands and thousands of flight hours going back at least 7 years, and they aren't reproducible.
Anecdotes are valuable in coming up with things to test out, but once they are tested out and fail, you have to accept that it is something else.