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?