Great link, but I object to the word, "absolutely." Your link speculates on them as a cause, whatever version of the NTSB that investigated (yes, I know, NTSB is only in the US and hence I said whatever version implying the foreign national version thereof) the accidents didn't rule it as causal.

Further, from my bag of tricks, I can tell you for a fact that a cell phone CAN create interference on the VHF radios in use on the plane. That's actually how we used to be reminded to turn our cell phones off as the pilot; you heard a repeating undulating noise on the radio as the phone sent out a burst signal. Turn the phone off, problem solved. (This is in a Lear 35.) We could occasionally tell when one of the pax turned their phone on, as well, for the same reason. Annoying, yes. Dangerous, not really, but I suppose if it came at exactly the wrong time coupled with other distractions, maybe. A correctly placed, transmissive device can cause interference. I'm aware of the frequency seperation, so I'd guess its some kind of harmonic interference, or simple bleed through; of course, 20 year old wiring could have had some fraying issues as well.

For the other issues raised: computers, iPods, Kindles. Computers I get - they're big enough to be a projectile, and interfere with egress. iPods I've always found silly, but I guess I can buy it. Kindles/Nooks, tough? That one's my pet peeve. Same size/weight as a book (which is OK) but has to be put away. Hell, my Kindle is an autorized source for FLIP to be used in the cockpit to display approach charts; why shouldn't I be allowed to keep it on, and keep reading? However, when prompted, away it goes, to avoid any "unpleasantness." Dems da rules, after all, and the crew is empowered to enforce them.

I dunno:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...yndication=rss

It sounds pretty definite in that article, too. But, sure, soften the language to "possibly". Still, it's a risk. Again, I think the risk is tiny and probably not worth worrying about, but it's still nonzero. That's all.

This is getting out of hand. I'm emailing DL re this whole debacle right now. I'll get back to you in 5-7 business days. (Just to make sure my email is accurate, it was #1 who was on the phone and was rude, so the FA upgraded #2 and his turtle instead?)

If you read the rest of my post, I'd say the probability is not only nonzero, I can say from personal experience its definite that it can cause interference. As far as the one posted here, I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate on what happened.

Aviation fire alarms generally work one of three ways: like the smoke detector in your home, by heat, or optically. The theory behind the optical detector is that the hold should be dark, so any bright light must by necessity be from a flame source. There would likely be a weight on wheels switch that deactivates it, so you don't get a warning klaxon when the baggage door is opened to offload the bags. In this case, I would speculate that the cell phone lit up when a call came in; that means it was in an exterior pocket, and the material was thin enough to see through, and it was facing the right direction to be picked up by a detector. The cell phone in and of itself wouldn't have caused any issues (i.e., not an interference issue) but was instead a light that shone in the wrong place.

Not an issue with the phone being in the pax's hand; not really sure how I feel about it. That's the kind of scenario I would have to laugh at, though, and it also sounds like, "Well, we can't explain what happened, so this is what we think happened."

I did some digging to try and find the actual cause of this "incident"...wouldn't you know it, nothing really exists online, and I don't really want to try and find the Slovenian version of an NTSB! Plus, my Slovenian is a little rusty, so I might not be able to read it...

What do you mean GETTING out of hand?

Definitely requires an email to DL. Ask for compensation. Not sure about your facts, though. Are you sure #1 was on the phone?

What amazes me is that through the course of this thread, the real truth has never come out. Plain and simple it was our friend the S-word that allowed the Cat to get upgraded in the first place. Not only that, but reports are that the FA snuck a banana from the snack basket to provide to the cat while spending over 8 hours on the 3 hour flight surfing Facebook. It also turns out the Cat had to use 576000 SkyMiles to actually book the ticket to begin with.

No, AJ, I'm not sure. I'm not sure at all. SMI, are you listening?

What really happened was that the #1 PAX was on a early delivered iPhone 4 and the cat under the seat of #2 was actually a Droid. That just doesn't mix.

So #1 was talking on a cell phone and #2 was speeding???

how does OP know all this?

They were under the seat of # 2 talking to #1 on the phone:)

Finally.. photos of #1 and #2... and the cat!
 

Number One:
http://news.filefront.com/wp-content...11/dr-evil.jpg

Number Two:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_wJDJpE18iY...ensnapz003.png

And the cat!:
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/sites/...glesworth0.jpg

The turtle is reported to be hiding out with Dubai royalty trying to avoid the paparazzi.

Was hoping that after three weeks and 88 posts, OP might return to help clarify this situation. No dice. Had he/she been a bit more straightforward, and avoided such terms as “chuckle,” we might not all be here scratching our heads.

Clearly the OP was actually a non-rev who knew the FA was friends with the cat.