A Reddit post in r/flying raises a practical, often under-discussed issue in general aviation cockpits: ergonomic accommodation for pilots of shorter stature, and specifically where to mount an iPad or electronic flight bag (EFB) when a traditional kneeboard doesn't fit. The original poster, who uses a seat cushion to reach the rudder pedals and see over the glareshield, notes that sitting close enough to the yoke to operate the aircraft means a kneeboard-mounted tablet collides with the yoke itself. She's asking the community whether a window- or side-mounted solution is the workaround other shorter pilots have adopted.
This is a small but telling example of a broader human-factors reality in aviation: cockpits, particularly in legacy general aviation trainers and older piston aircraft, were largely designed around anthropometric standards from decades past that skewed toward taller, male pilot populations. Seat travel range, pedal adjustability, yoke position, and even where manufacturers assume a kneeboard will sit are all downstream of those original design assumptions. As the pilot population diversifies, workarounds like seat cushions, pedal extensions, and repositioned EFB mounts have become common but largely word-of-mouth knowledge passed through forums and flight schools rather than addressed systematically by manufacturers or documented in POHs. RAM mounts, suction-cup window mounts, and yoke-clip alternatives that attach to the panel or side window rails are frequently cited solutions in these communities precisely because kneeboards assume a certain amount of thigh clearance that shorter pilots sitting closer to the panel simply don't have.
For flight instructors and flight schools, this matters operationally. EFB accessibility and cockpit visibility directly affect scan patterns, checklist usage, and situational awareness — a tablet mounted awkwardly or held in the lap because a kneeboard doesn't fit is a real distraction and safety factor, not merely a comfort issue. CFIs training shorter students should be proactively discussing seat cushion options, pedal extenders (where certified/available), and alternative EFB mounting points during initial cockpit familiarization rather than leaving students to discover these solutions independently through online forums after the fact. This is especially relevant as flight schools see growing enrollment among women and pilots of smaller stature amid industry-wide efforts to widen the talent pipeline into commercial aviation.
More broadly, this thread reflects a slow but real shift within aviation toward acknowledging that cockpit ergonomics aren't one-size-fits-all. Business jet and airline manufacturers have made more progress here — adjustable seats, pedals, and rudder positions are standard in most transport-category aircraft, and EFB mounting solutions in Part 121 and Part 135 operations are typically standardized and certified as part of the aircraft's minimum equipment list. But general aviation trainers, many of which are Cessna and Piper airframes designed in the 1960s-80s, lag behind. As flight schools continue to modernize fleets with aircraft like the Cirrus SR20/22 or Diamond DA40, which offer more adjustable seating and integrated avionics reducing reliance on portable EFBs, some of these ergonomic friction points may naturally diminish. Until then, community knowledge-sharing — cushions, window mounts, and creative kneeboard alternatives — remains a practical stopgap for pilots whose bodies don't match the cockpit's original design assumptions.