> Boy, is this ever a good example of how these legends get started. Note that
> the offending devices were reported second hand to be radios; in no case was
> the computer or a cd player indicted. The pilot only had his 'black box'
> experiment ("I say it in the intercom HERE and the gyros correct THERE") in
> one case to support the supposed cause and effect.

It certainly lacks experimental rigor.

> and to top it all off, I don't even know the source of this relatively
> poorly identified source.

If the design works, you never will.  ASRS depends on annonymity.
(A previous voluntary safety reporting system run by the FAA had
a little problem.  The FAA used the reports as the basis of action
against the pilot.  Participation kind of dropped off rapidly.)

> I don't know with any real assurance that there ever was a pilot, or
> a real report, or even any such organization as the one refered to in
> the posting. This is not a good foundation for forming an engineering
> opinion.

ASRS is the Aviation Safety Reporting System.  It's a joint
FAA-NASA program.  As I recall, it's funded by the FAA and
totally run by NASA.  It's an attempt to gather & disseminate
information about incidents before they cause accidents.  It's
been in existance for years (decades?).

You (pilots, controllers, etc) file reports with the ASRS office
at Moffet Field (San Francisco bay area).  Top strip contains all
the identifying information.  ASRS assigns an incident number and
date/time stamps the strip then returns it to the submitter.  ASRS
is also supposed to censor any identifying information from the
body of the report before entering it in their computer files.

As part of the carrot to get people to file reports, there's a
provision where if the FAA starts action on the incident, if the
person charged filed an ASRS report within 10 days of the event,
the FAA waives the penalty.  There are certain restrictions but
overall it's a powerfull incentive.

From everything I've heard, the ASRS office happily cooperates
with anyone doing serious research.

> DATE OF OCCURRENCE           : 9301

Notice that the event(s) described occured 5 years ago.  I
expect the emissions from current generation handheld (or
laptop) devices have significantly different characteristics.
Assuming the old devices interfered (a position I'm not willing
to defend), do the current ones do so too?  In the same ways?

                                                Lee Jones