Looking at my MEL, there are 3 different detection loops (engine, turbine and nacelle) per engine so presumably only one element of this has failed. In addition to bringing up all of the engine indications (and maybe the occasional visual check from the cabin) I'd be tempted to continue with this mitigation in place (and knowing that I still had two detection systems operating and engine instruments to monitor). We could also discuss in what situations we would fire a bottle i.e. if there was abnormal operation and fire may be possible, fire it (and the other!).
Would then follow-up with a call to the company to see if their take was the same as mine/ours - if not, review my thought process and/or do as the company wishes (in the case of a turnback or diversion) - it's their jet. Route would factor in to the decision too - i.e. over Europe or the Pacific, etc.
Was a study done by the manufacturers suggesting that engine fires pretty much should be self-contained i.e. it's more likely to burn off the pylon than affect the wing?
I'm an FO but like to think about these scenarios...
Last edited by bucket_and_spade; 21st Nov 2012 at 08:05.