The forum post in question reflects a recurring and perennial question among pilots who use an iPad Mini as their primary electronic flight bag (EFB): how to mount or secure the device in the cockpit without spending heavily on purpose-built aviation hardware. The original poster is weighing two low-cost options—an elastic kneeboard strap (referred to as "myclip," a nod to the popular MyGoFlight-style elastic band products) versus a simple rubberized case relying on leg friction to stay in place. Notably, the poster explicitly rules out the Pivot Case, a well-regarded but pricier ($100+) mounting system favored by many instrument-rated and commercial pilots for its rugged, panel- or yoke-mountable design. This is a budget-conscious, practicality-driven decision rather than a search for the most robust solution.
For working pilots, EFB mounting is not a trivial convenience issue—it is a cockpit resource management and safety consideration. The FAA and most Part 91/135/121 operators require electronic devices used for navigation, charts, or performance data to be secured in a manner that does not create a loose-object hazard during turbulence, maneuvering flight, or an off-airport landing. A device that slides off a leg or comes loose from a friction-only case can become a projectile in the cabin, interfere with flight controls, or simply distract the pilot at a critical phase of flight while they scramble to retrieve it. This is precisely why aftermarket EFB mounting solutions have become a mini-industry unto themselves, ranging from $15 elastic kneeboard straps to $150+ RAM Mount or Pivot Case yoke/panel systems used widely in corporate and charter operations.
The tension in this post—cheap-and-functional versus purpose-built-and-secure—mirrors a broader trend across general aviation and even light business aviation operations, where pilots increasingly self-equip their EFBs rather than rely on installed avionics-integrated tablets. Part 91 owner-flown aircraft and flight training environments (where iPad Minis are especially popular due to their smaller footprint in cramped trainer cockpits like the C172 or PA-28) see the widest variance in mounting solutions, since there's no ops-spec or company standardization dictating equipment choice. In contrast, Part 135 and 121 operators typically have documented EFB policies specifying approved mounting hardware, reflecting lessons learned from turbulence-related device separation incidents and general cockpit ergonomics studies.
This kind of grassroots pilot discussion—occurring on r/flying rather than in an official advisory circular—also underscores how much day-to-day EFB usability guidance is crowd-sourced within the pilot community rather than formally standardized. While the FAA's AC 120-76D covers EFB authorization and use broadly, it says little about specific mounting hardware, leaving pilots to trade recommendations informally. For flight departments and chief pilots reading such threads, it's worth noting that even seemingly minor equipment choices like a kneeboard strap versus a friction case can have outsized implications for cockpit safety culture, and establishing a standardized, tested EFB mounting solution—rather than leaving it to individual improvisation—remains a worthwhile best practice, especially as tablet-based EFBs continue to proliferate across every segment of aviation from flight training to business jets.