Having read plenty about the true incident that inspired this movie, I'll try to help clear up some of the misconceptions voiced by other contributors before going on with my own review.
The real incident, which happened in 1983, involved an Air Canada 767, which had only been in the fleet for a few months at the time. The 767 was also the first aircraft delivered to Air Canada to measure fuel in kilograms rather than pounds - a requirement mandated by the federal government (which at the time owned Air Canada as a crown corporation).
When the 1 of the 2 'channels' on the computer that operated the fuel gauges failed (originally discovered in Edmonton a few days before the flight in question), it was discovered that by pulling the circuit breaker for the faulty channel, the gauges would work properly. This was meant as a temporary fix until a new computer could be obtained. Since the 767 was such a new aircraft, this was going to take a while. However, because there was now no backup system, the Edmonton mechanic noted in the logs that a fuel drip was required to verify the computer information as a backup. He further taped off the breaker switch and marked it 'inoperative'. A day later, in Montreal, another mechanic noted the log entry and decided to tinker with the fuel gauges to see what was going on. He activated the inoperative breaker, causing the entire fuel gauge system to fail. In the rush of events leading up to the departure of the flight portrayed in the movie, that breaker was never pulled again, and the fuel gauges remained non-functional.
Following the log (and not knowing about this breaker), the pilots believed that a fuel drip would be sufficient to ensure the fuel load on board. The comment by a previous contributor about fuel not being measured in gallons or litres is correct, however, the fuel truck (or in-ground system) at Montreal measured fuel in litres, which then had to be converted into kilograms for the flight management system on board the aircraft. The fateful mistake was that the pilots and ground crew used the wrong conversion factor, and converted litres into pounds (a pound is just less than half a kilogram). Therefore, the 767 left Montreal with just less than half the fuel needed to reach Edmonton.
In real life, Air Canada put the blame squarely on the pilots for the foul-up. However, a later independent investigation shared blame equally among the pilots, ground crew, mechanics, Air Canada, and in fact the Canadian government (for forcing a metric aircraft on Air Canada in the first place). The pilots were commended for carrying off the landing as they did.
Now to the movie.
I saw this movie on TV a few weeks ago and noticed many similarities to the real-life incident. However, I found a lot of details wanting and a lot of the dramatic tension to be really fake. The internal monologues reminded me of a bad soap opera (sorry folks, but I find pretty much all soaps to be painful experiences). I echo other contributors' question regarding the knowledge of the Gimli airport - the location of the field was well known to the co-pilot as he had served there as an Air Force pilot some years before. It was similarly known to Winnipeg controllers - they were able to direct the pilots to the correct heading right away in the real incident.
I found the last 20 minutes of the movie the poorest part of the show, as most of the suspense seemed very contrived. For all the strain showing on the captain's face as he struggled to hold the plane in a side-slip (which, by the way, he held for far less time in the real incident), nobody else - not even in the cockpit, seems to be reacting to what the plane is doing. The side-slip had the plane canted up on a sharp angle, although the cabin shots show people peacefully seated in a level airplane. They definitely would have noticed this.
Most laughable was the sequence after the landing. Yes, the nose gear collapsed on landing as the hydraulics weren't working to lock it in place. Yes, the plane slid to a stop on its nose. Yes, they landed on a closed runway that had been converted to a drag strip. And yes, there was smoke in the cockpit due to smouldering insulation - heated up during the landing roll. However, I have not read anywhere that the copilot and mechanic attempted to climb back up the rear slide into the plane to fetch the captain - and even if they had, it seems more logical that they would have entered through the front door, which was only a few feet off the ground. In fact, from my reading, that is exactly how the pilot and copilot left the plane.. through the front door, and stepped down onto the ground. That whole scene left me thinking that the director was looking for just one more way to add some drama before the closing credits, but it was really very poorly done.
I personally think this movie should be re-done. It's a good story, the more so that it is completely true. Having competent writers and a good director would really help the story along - even the best actor can only do so much with a bad script. It should create the sort of suspense that "Apollo 13" did - even though you know how the story turns out, you should be left wondering as you watch the movie. Could we try again, please?
The real incident, which happened in 1983, involved an Air Canada 767, which had only been in the fleet for a few months at the time. The 767 was also the first aircraft delivered to Air Canada to measure fuel in kilograms rather than pounds - a requirement mandated by the federal government (which at the time owned Air Canada as a crown corporation).
When the 1 of the 2 'channels' on the computer that operated the fuel gauges failed (originally discovered in Edmonton a few days before the flight in question), it was discovered that by pulling the circuit breaker for the faulty channel, the gauges would work properly. This was meant as a temporary fix until a new computer could be obtained. Since the 767 was such a new aircraft, this was going to take a while. However, because there was now no backup system, the Edmonton mechanic noted in the logs that a fuel drip was required to verify the computer information as a backup. He further taped off the breaker switch and marked it 'inoperative'. A day later, in Montreal, another mechanic noted the log entry and decided to tinker with the fuel gauges to see what was going on. He activated the inoperative breaker, causing the entire fuel gauge system to fail. In the rush of events leading up to the departure of the flight portrayed in the movie, that breaker was never pulled again, and the fuel gauges remained non-functional.
Following the log (and not knowing about this breaker), the pilots believed that a fuel drip would be sufficient to ensure the fuel load on board. The comment by a previous contributor about fuel not being measured in gallons or litres is correct, however, the fuel truck (or in-ground system) at Montreal measured fuel in litres, which then had to be converted into kilograms for the flight management system on board the aircraft. The fateful mistake was that the pilots and ground crew used the wrong conversion factor, and converted litres into pounds (a pound is just less than half a kilogram). Therefore, the 767 left Montreal with just less than half the fuel needed to reach Edmonton.
In real life, Air Canada put the blame squarely on the pilots for the foul-up. However, a later independent investigation shared blame equally among the pilots, ground crew, mechanics, Air Canada, and in fact the Canadian government (for forcing a metric aircraft on Air Canada in the first place). The pilots were commended for carrying off the landing as they did.
Now to the movie.
I saw this movie on TV a few weeks ago and noticed many similarities to the real-life incident. However, I found a lot of details wanting and a lot of the dramatic tension to be really fake. The internal monologues reminded me of a bad soap opera (sorry folks, but I find pretty much all soaps to be painful experiences). I echo other contributors' question regarding the knowledge of the Gimli airport - the location of the field was well known to the co-pilot as he had served there as an Air Force pilot some years before. It was similarly known to Winnipeg controllers - they were able to direct the pilots to the correct heading right away in the real incident.
I found the last 20 minutes of the movie the poorest part of the show, as most of the suspense seemed very contrived. For all the strain showing on the captain's face as he struggled to hold the plane in a side-slip (which, by the way, he held for far less time in the real incident), nobody else - not even in the cockpit, seems to be reacting to what the plane is doing. The side-slip had the plane canted up on a sharp angle, although the cabin shots show people peacefully seated in a level airplane. They definitely would have noticed this.
Most laughable was the sequence after the landing. Yes, the nose gear collapsed on landing as the hydraulics weren't working to lock it in place. Yes, the plane slid to a stop on its nose. Yes, they landed on a closed runway that had been converted to a drag strip. And yes, there was smoke in the cockpit due to smouldering insulation - heated up during the landing roll. However, I have not read anywhere that the copilot and mechanic attempted to climb back up the rear slide into the plane to fetch the captain - and even if they had, it seems more logical that they would have entered through the front door, which was only a few feet off the ground. In fact, from my reading, that is exactly how the pilot and copilot left the plane.. through the front door, and stepped down onto the ground. That whole scene left me thinking that the director was looking for just one more way to add some drama before the closing credits, but it was really very poorly done.
I personally think this movie should be re-done. It's a good story, the more so that it is completely true. Having competent writers and a good director would really help the story along - even the best actor can only do so much with a bad script. It should create the sort of suspense that "Apollo 13" did - even though you know how the story turns out, you should be left wondering as you watch the movie. Could we try again, please?