Interesting thread. May I comment on a few of the posts ?
(a) discounting the overt sensationalism of the New Scientist article, there are numerous more credible and authoritative articles in the literature which show, quite clearly, that there IS a problem. It is not a matter of having to mod the PED ... the even bigger problem is that the basic problem is very rubbery and variable and is related to the range of frequencies and power spectra which some, if not all, PEDs can, and do, radiate and the mass of cables etc which route through the airframe just waiting to have little electrical currents induced in them.
I have one such article scanned from Avionics Magazine if anyone would like a copy by email.
(b) there have been numerous reports over the past 20 or so years since we have seen the introduction of PacMan aircraft where the flight deck instrumentation has done strange things, seemingly inexplicably. Just in one smallish airline in my past, 767s had an uncommanded turn and, on another occasion, screens go black - in the absence of post flight replication, both were presumed to be due to PED interference as far as I am aware.
(c) the suggestion that the problem can be avoided by heavier emphasis on basic instrumentation may or may not be valid depending on where the RF generating PED and the aircraft looms/connectors are relative to one another ....
(d) Do crews always use every bit of information in such a way that an ILS problem will ALWAYS be picked up ? mmmmm ?
Have a look at the Useful URL thread and go to the NZ CAA report on the ANZ Apia incident - longish report but it shows how an experienced and competent crew can get trapped by unusual circumstances.
I have, over the past few years, setup crews working under high load in the simulator for a false capture - not for any reason other than to give those who get caught out something to think about over a beer - and more than a few have been caught by the trap. While some recognise and recover quickly from the situation, others, who are otherwise quite competent, have been totally confused by the unexpected presentation and situation.
It is a facile argument, in the extreme, to dismiss the PED interference problem as being somehow due to pilot incompetence or complacency. To do so is to throw the entire body of CRM and training knowledge out the window .... People can, and do, get into unusual situations where there is a very real potential for hazard.
(e) regarding the question of GPS replacing conventional ground based aids the driving force, unashamedly, is cost. I attended a symposium some years ago where several speakers detailed likely dollar savings - an extremely significant consideration.
(f) to shield all aircraft system looming and connectors adequately would drive up both cost and weight. Certainly an option, but not overly attractive for the Industry.
(g) part of the problem is that the problem is so variable. Given a particular class of PED, this make/model produces a problem, this one doesn't ... and so on .. and the one problem unit may produce a problem in this aircraft, but not that one .....
We have used various ranges of off-the-shelf recording gear (video, tape recorders, etc) for flight test data gathering and never had an observable problem. But that doesn't, for a moment, suggest that one won't crop up in the future.
(h) a solution would be to test all combinations of PED and aircraft ... about 10 seconds' thought will cause that option to be discarded due to cost ....
(i) Kevin's discharge photos are interesting .. but many junior undergraduate physics classes investigate the same shielding phenomena.
I have to agree with Genghis' last post ... who wants to sit for hours in an already uncomfortable aircraft seat wearing head to toe chainmail while the idiot next door plays mad scientists ?