Engine fire B737-300/900 QRH procedure

[Mach E Avelli]

Of course you should land ASAP whenever the QRH says so! Has anyone suggested otherwise?
But often in the simulator we see crews who don't apply any sense of urgency to a situation when cues are given to them that the damage really is a threat to their existence. A good one is to throw in a fuel leak, such as could be caused by shrapnel from the engine going through the wing. Some crews are quite happy to head for the holding pattern for a detailed approach briefing, all the while losing fuel at an alarming rate.
Others will blithely start cross feeding to the good engine even though the asymmetry is all wrong. Some will go for a full approach with the fire warning still illuminated, rather than cut it short. One can only hope that in a real situation fear for survival would trigger more decisive action.
I won't relate in detail my personal experience on another type with a similar fire detection system to the older Boeings here, as it is to be found elsewhere. Suffice to say, new aircraft out of the factory only a week, faulty combustion chamber, very intense flame, warning system disabled within seconds, leading initially to thinking perhaps the warning was spurious. Fortunately fire was visible from the cabin so both bottles were discharged despite no warning in the cockpit. From the initial very short indication to recognition that it was for real, to action commencing was less than a minute, yet considerable damage was done, including almost burning through some vital engine control linkages.
Some years later I had the pleasure of completing a Type Rating with an American Check Airman who had flown in excess of 30,000 hours. This guy had done a lot of work on early wind shear escape techniques for jet aircraft, so was no student pilot big on theory small on practice. During simulator training he also recommended a fire test after the drill. He had either experienced a similar event, or thought about the possibility.
The QRH does not call for cabin crew to be asked to look for signs of damage either, but if you had a fire/severe damage situation, after completing the drill would you not have someone look and report or send the F/O back if workload permitted? The QRH is only one part of managing emergencies and certainly does not prohibit further investigation, though of course one would be ill advised to start throwing extra switches or resetting circuit breakers.
After a fire or severe damage drill, if crew reported that they could not see anything would that be confirmation bias? Only for someone who subscribed to the notion that ignorance is bliss. Most would still land ASAP, as per QRH. However, if fire was visible or fuel was everywhere except in the tank the term ASAP could take on a whole new degree of urgency.