Flying with a tablet can make cockpit planning much calmer, but only when the app is built around the way pilots actually make decisions. I spent time looking at iFly EFB as a flight-planning and navigation tool, and my impression is that it aims well beyond being a moving map. It is an electronic flight bag for both visual and instrument flying, made by Adventure Pilot, LLC, with a focus on putting useful aviation information into one cockpit workspace.
The app is free to install and is rated for Everyone, which makes trying it straightforward. Its optional purchases range from $0.99 to $179.99 per item, so the important question is not simply whether the download costs anything. The real question is whether its paid content and capabilities fit the way you fly. In my view, it is most interesting for pilots who want a dedicated aviation workflow rather than a general map app with an aviation layer added on top.
How iFly EFB feels in current use
The strongest part of the experience is its identity. This is not trying to be a road-navigation app, a weather widget, or a casual travel map. It is designed for pilots who need to think about routes, airspace, airports, and the difference between visual flight and instrument procedures. That specialization matters because aviation navigation is less forgiving than simply following a blue line to a destination.
For a VFR pilot, an electronic flight bag can reduce the number of separate references needed during preparation. Instead of switching constantly between a paper chart, a route-planning tool, and a separate airport reference, the aim is to keep the planning process connected. For an IFR pilot, the value comes from having a workspace that acknowledges procedures and instrument-oriented planning rather than treating every trip as a straight line between two points.
I would not describe the app as something a new pilot should open casually and immediately trust in the air. The interface may be intuitive compared with a collection of unrelated aviation tools, but aviation software still demands preparation. You need to understand how its charts, route tools, and displayed information behave before relying on it when workload is high. A few minutes of experimentation on the ground can prevent a great deal of cockpit distraction later.
Its public reception is notably strong: the app holds a 4.9 average from around 700 ratings, with roughly 366 written reviews and more than 50K installs. Those figures do not prove that it suits every pilot, but they do suggest that the product has found a committed audience rather than being an obscure experiment. I also like that the developer is clearly identified as Adventure Pilot, LLC, giving the product a more focused aviation identity than a generic navigation utility.
Planning a short local flight
A realistic everyday use case is a weekend flight to a nearby airport for lunch. Before leaving home, I would use the app to examine the route, consider the airspace along the way, review the destination, and think through alternates if the weather or traffic picture changes. The benefit is not that the app makes the decision for me. The benefit is that it gives me a structured place to make the decision.
That distinction is important. A good EFB supports pilot judgement; it does not replace it. I still want to verify current operational information through appropriate sources and compare the planned route with the aircraft’s actual performance, fuel situation, equipment, and limitations. The app is useful when it helps me organize those checks, not when it encourages me to skip them.
One practical habit I would recommend is building the route in stages rather than entering the entire trip and accepting the first result. Start with the departure and destination, inspect what lies between them, then look deliberately at the parts of the route that could create trouble. This approach makes the map a thinking tool. It also exposes whether the route is convenient for the aircraft and pilot, rather than merely geometrically short.
Where the VFR and IFR split matters
The promise of supporting both VFR and IFR flights is more meaningful than it may sound. These are not just two labels for the same trip. A VFR pilot may care most about visual references, airspace boundaries, and practical diversion options. An IFR pilot needs a different mental model involving procedures, clearances, and route structure. An app that recognizes both workflows is potentially more useful than one designed around only a single kind of flying.
In practice, I would still approach the two modes differently. For a visual flight, I would use the app as a broad situational-awareness aid and keep my attention on outside references. For an instrument flight, I would spend more time on the ground checking the route and understanding how the app presents the relevant information. The tablet should reduce workload, not become another instrument that demands constant interpretation.
This is also where a dedicated EFB can beat a general-purpose navigation app. Ordinary map applications are excellent at roads, addresses, and consumer travel, but they are not built around aviation planning. They may be easier for a passenger to understand, yet that simplicity becomes a weakness when you need aviation-specific context. iFly EFB is the better fit when the flight itself is the center of the task.
What the free download really means
The free price is a welcome starting point, especially for someone who wants to inspect the workflow before committing money. However, I would not assume that “free” means the complete aviation experience is available without further decisions. The presence of in-app purchases from $0.99 to $179.99 per item indicates a broad range of optional content or capabilities, and the upper end is substantial enough to deserve careful consideration.
My advice is to identify the exact flying problem you want to solve before buying anything. A recreational pilot who flies occasionally may need a very different package from someone who plans frequent cross-country or instrument trips. Buying first and investigating later is the wrong order for an aviation app. I would begin with the free installation, test the planning flow on the ground, and then decide whether the available additions match my region and flying habits.
This pricing structure is also a reminder that an EFB is not just a one-time app purchase. Aviation information changes, and the useful part of the product may depend on the content and services selected around the core application. Anyone comparing it with paper charts or a general map app should compare the complete cost of the workflow, not only the initial download price.
What has changed, what users should expect, and what still needs care
The app was released on January 20, 2014, which gives it a long enough history to be judged as an established product rather than a brand-new concept. That history is relevant because aviation software has to evolve with device operating systems, chart practices, pilot expectations, and the way people prepare flights. The current version should therefore be judged by how well it serves today’s workflow, while its age suggests that continued maintenance and thoughtful updates matter greatly.
I am careful not to treat the original release date as proof of any particular feature change. A long-running app can mature in useful ways, but it can also carry older design decisions. What I can say from using it as an aviation-focused product is that its central idea remains clear: combine planning and navigation needs in a tool that speaks to both VFR and IFR pilots. That focus is more important than having a fashionable interface.
For existing users, the main effect of a mature product is familiarity. If you already know where to find the information you need, that familiarity can be a real safety advantage. You spend less time hunting through screens and more time reviewing the flight. On the other hand, familiarity can make people overconfident. A pilot who has used the app for a long time should still verify that the current content, selected purchases, and device setup are appropriate for the next flight.
New users should expect a learning period, even though the product is described as intuitive. “Intuitive” in an aviation context does not mean self-explanatory in every situation. You still need to learn the symbols, understand the route presentation, and decide which information deserves attention first. I would practice with a familiar local route, then deliberately create a diversion or alternate scenario on the ground to see how quickly I can adapt.
Three habits that make the app more useful
First, I would use it before the flight as a rehearsal tool, not only as a live display. Build the planned route, identify the points where you might change course, and decide what information you would need if the original plan stopped making sense. This turns the tablet into a prepared reference instead of an emergency research project.
Second, I would keep the screen arrangement and route style consistent from flight to flight. Consistency reduces mental translation. If I repeatedly change how information is displayed, I may spend valuable attention interpreting the interface rather than interpreting the airspace and weather. A familiar setup is especially useful when moving between local practice flights and longer trips.
Third, I would treat the app as one part of a layered cockpit process. Before departure, compare its planning output with aircraft performance, fuel reserves, weather information, and the operational details you are required to check. During flight, use it to support awareness while maintaining outside scanning and other required tasks. This is a small but important trade-off: the more capable the EFB becomes, the easier it is to let it dominate attention.
Limitations and situations where I would choose something else
The first limitation is financial uncertainty around the optional purchases. The free installation lowers the barrier to testing, but the potential cost at the high end means that serious users should investigate exactly what they need before building their whole workflow around the app. If you only fly very occasionally and already have a trusted paper or institutional planning process, the paid side may not offer enough value.
The second limitation is platform dependence. A tablet-based EFB is convenient, but it depends on battery life, screen visibility, device reliability, and the pilot’s ability to operate it without distraction. Those are not defects unique to this app, but they affect the decision to use any electronic flight bag. I would not make it my only source of navigation information simply because it is easier to carry than several paper references.
The third is that a specialized tool can feel excessive for someone who only wants a simple map. If your goal is to find a restaurant after landing, track a road trip, or show a passenger where the aircraft is moving, a general navigation app may be simpler. iFly EFB makes more sense when you are preparing and conducting an actual flight and want aviation-specific context.
I would also be cautious about assuming that a high rating removes the need for personal testing. The 4.9 average is encouraging, but pilots have different aircraft, regions, certifications, devices, and planning habits. A product can be excellent for one pilot and awkward for another. The right test is whether you can complete your own normal planning routine accurately and without unnecessary screen hunting.
Who should install it?
I think it is worth trying for student pilots who want to learn a disciplined electronic planning workflow, private pilots who regularly make cross-country trips, and instrument-rated pilots looking for a dedicated EFB environment. It may also suit pilots who are tired of piecing together several general aviation tools and would rather begin with one aviation-centered application.
I would be more hesitant to recommend it to someone who rarely flies, dislikes managing optional digital purchases, or expects a completely hands-off navigation experience. It is also not the right answer for a pilot who has not yet developed basic chart-reading and flight-planning habits. An EFB can organize knowledge, but it cannot supply the judgement that comes from training and preparation.
My overall view is positive, with an important qualification: the app is most valuable when used deliberately. Its combination of VFR and IFR focus, free entry point, and established presence makes it a credible candidate for a pilot’s toolkit. The strongest reason to choose it is not the headline feature list; it is the possibility of keeping aviation planning, route review, and in-flight reference connected in one focused environment.
At the same time, I would watch how well the product continues to evolve for current devices and changing pilot expectations. A mature aviation app needs more than a stable name. It needs dependable content handling, clear workflows, and updates that improve cockpit use without making familiar tasks harder. Those are the areas I would pay attention to before investing in the more expensive options.
For now, I would install the free version, test it with a familiar flight, and judge it by three questions: can I plan without confusion, can I find important information quickly, and does it support rather than distract from my normal cockpit routine? If the answer is yes, iFly EFB can become a practical companion for both visual and instrument flying. If the answer is no, a simpler tool or a different aviation workflow may be the better choice, regardless of its impressive rating.
