[quote="jmaca88"]I am very well aware of what the official outcomes were for both the NZ and tilt train accidents, however I have chosen these because of the opinions leading up to the official conclusions.[/quote]The ANZ703 accident did raise the possibility of a mobile phone interfering with the GPWS aboard the aircraft, which was discounted by the aircraft manufacturer. That being said, for a mobile phone to be a casual factor in the accident directly, one or both of the crew would have had to have been distracted by the phone for a sustained period of time - something that is not concluded in the accident report. They were over 1,000 feet lower than they should have been for that portion of the approach when they crashed and were below the approach profile for several miles before that. Why? Because they were distracted.
The reason they were distracted was not because there was a phone call in play, but because they became pre-occupied with troubleshooting an unsafe gear indication, in the same manner as Eastern Airlines 401 a couple of decades previously when [i]that[/] crew failed to monitor the aircraft and flew it into a swamp.
However, I'm at a loss to agree with your claim that a mobile phone was ever considered a primary or even casual factor in the tilt rollover. The investigation looked at the possibility, and discounted it immediately. There was never an opinion that a mobile caused the crash. Indeed the fact that the Driver was probably more distracted by the upcoming cuppa and might have got some crib got far more coverage in the report than did his mobile phone usage...
[quote="jmaca88"]Going back to the tilt train, was the official report published stating a mobile phone? Yes! [/quote]Agreed. And so was the cab and head lighting mentioned, the fact the fireman was making a cuppa and the station protection & vigilance systems were ineffective, and these latter factors played a far greater role in the rollover than did a non-existant mobile phone call.
[quote="jmaca88"]Does anyone claim that it caused the accident? No![/quote]Someone must have, because you're claiming someone had an "opinion" that it did before it was discounted. Who that someone was, I've no idea. Probably the QPS that were miffed the traincrew declined to be interviewed by them and they couldn't get them with some kind of ciminal conduct charge.
[quote="jmaca88"]However I want to know how it fell under the umbrella of suspicion and how it was discounted.[/quote]Becuase the ATSB/NTSB are pretty through when it comes to such serious investigations and will look at nearly any possibility before discounting it. Coming from an aviation background, surely you agree with that methodology, as how many times has a seemingly insignificant piece of "something" led to an aircraft coming down?
Anyway, now that we've pretty much concluded there haven't been any instances of traincrews being distracted by mobile phones, yet alone any that led to an incident or accident, perhaps you would be better served looking at more frequent causes of accidents. And even then, the majority of recent rail accidents in this country have been caused by factors outside the crew's control.