A fire should result in a landing in minutes, just the time taken to manouver the aircraft.
True, but once again I throw on the table that if the warning has gone out, and there are no other signs to suggest that the fire is still burning, then taking as little time to ensure a successful outcome is what most would do. That does not necessarily include burning fuel to reduce landing weight by a coupe of tonnes. (The a/c isn't going anywhere without an engineering inspection, which could therefore include an overweight landing check.)
The area of confusion, and mitigation, is where Boeing says that an extinguished WW fire warning with there gear down does not guarantee the fire is out. That to me is the shocker. I've run this scenario in the sim under guidelines from the company, and of course the fire warning goes out and they want the whole 9 yards of return landing preparation. On the ground, the fire stays on, and they want the pax-evac exercise performed. These are tick in the box sim scenarios. I'd prefer the WW fire in the air where it doesn't go out. Now what?
Boeing need to disseminate better information to pilots about the validity of extinguished warnings, AND to better define what "land at nearest suitable.." really means. You've a small unfamiliar minor airfield at 20mins from CRZ and a familiar major engineering base at 40mins from CRZ. Which are you going to drop into?
Why did the wheel well fire warning come on?
When I had it at medium level it was traced to faulty wiring and a sensor. I then discovered it was the 5th time in the fleet during that year, on different a/c, and I'd never heard of it. How many worldwide?