Narrative:

On pushback in atl, started left engine and shut down APU per captain request for single engine taxi and xbleed start of right engine. As captain applied power for taxi, left engine rolled back to less than idle and was shut down. As engine generator tripped, APU had shut down and aircraft lost electrical power except battery. Attempts to start APU failed and we had to be pwred back to gate. Maintenance arrived and checked everything out and released us. Their comment was that, while not common, this type of problem had happened before. We departed for iad normally. During cruise, we experienced VHF interference. I asked the flight attendant to check if any passenger was using any personal electronic device (ped). She said she thought a passenger had been using his cellular phone. I suggested she ask if he was using it during pushback. She said that he at first said yes, then got nervous and then said no. I told her to tell him there would be no punitive action and we just needed information. He declined and left the aircraft before I could talk to him. He could be telling the truth and the VHF problem could have been outside interference. I had no hard evidence and no witness, only speculation. The obvious concern is if a ped could interfere with the electronic fly-by-wire throttle controls. Is there enough emphasis on enforcement of ped restrictions in flight attendant training?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FO VOICES CONCERN OVER PERSONAL ELECTRONIC DEVICE (PED) EMI EFFECTS ON ENG FUEL CTLR AND RADIO INTERFERENCE ON VHF.

Narrative: ON PUSHBACK IN ATL, STARTED L ENG AND SHUT DOWN APU PER CAPT REQUEST FOR SINGLE ENG TAXI AND XBLEED START OF R ENG. AS CAPT APPLIED PWR FOR TAXI, L ENG ROLLED BACK TO LESS THAN IDLE AND WAS SHUT DOWN. AS ENG GENERATOR TRIPPED, APU HAD SHUT DOWN AND ACFT LOST ELECTRICAL PWR EXCEPT BATTERY. ATTEMPTS TO START APU FAILED AND WE HAD TO BE PWRED BACK TO GATE. MAINT ARRIVED AND CHKED EVERYTHING OUT AND RELEASED US. THEIR COMMENT WAS THAT, WHILE NOT COMMON, THIS TYPE OF PROB HAD HAPPENED BEFORE. WE DEPARTED FOR IAD NORMALLY. DURING CRUISE, WE EXPERIENCED VHF INTERFERENCE. I ASKED THE FLT ATTENDANT TO CHK IF ANY PAX WAS USING ANY PERSONAL ELECTRONIC DEVICE (PED). SHE SAID SHE THOUGHT A PAX HAD BEEN USING HIS CELLULAR PHONE. I SUGGESTED SHE ASK IF HE WAS USING IT DURING PUSHBACK. SHE SAID THAT HE AT FIRST SAID YES, THEN GOT NERVOUS AND THEN SAID NO. I TOLD HER TO TELL HIM THERE WOULD BE NO PUNITIVE ACTION AND WE JUST NEEDED INFO. HE DECLINED AND LEFT THE ACFT BEFORE I COULD TALK TO HIM. HE COULD BE TELLING THE TRUTH AND THE VHF PROB COULD HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE. I HAD NO HARD EVIDENCE AND NO WITNESS, ONLY SPECULATION. THE OBVIOUS CONCERN IS IF A PED COULD INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTRONIC FLY-BY-WIRE THROTTLE CTLS. IS THERE ENOUGH EMPHASIS ON ENFORCEMENT OF PED RESTRICTIONS IN FLT ATTENDANT TRAINING?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.