It’s SOP at every airline. Both bottles were fired. In addition the bottles are a monitored item in the ECAM.

It's been a long time, but as I recall with an engine fire in flight we would discharge one bottle, then wait for a specified time to see whether the fire warning would go out. If not, then discharge the second bottle. (That would be a bummer out around the ETP between the west coast and Hawaii).

I don't recall about on the ground, but it makes sense to discharge both bottles.

As an aside, I find flying a high-performance Part 23 twin in the flight levels without a fire suppression system not a great place to be.

You can clearly see fire in the engine area as as the aircraft touched down. I think a big part of the PIC's decision not to evacuate rested on the fact that fire services were already standing by when the aircraft landed. 2 minutes is a long time to wait for fire trucks to respond when your engine catches fire on the ground.

But in this case, the fire trucks were already there when the aircraft landed, and provided the crew with excellent information. I think the PIC made the right call. Professionalism through and through.

Not possible to make comparisons to the 77 fire in Singapore and this incident. Comparing oranges to clementines ...

Good decision made in this case, but my generally feeling is any fire - get the pax off. It was contained quiet quickly.

Having said that , in reference to Singapore the fire crew stated over the headset to the cockpit, "they will have the fire under control shortly" I am not entirely sure i would be content on hearing this comment , you have to ask yourself, what if the fire becomes out of control or a fire tender becomes unserviceable in the process.....Judgement !

Recalling our neighbour's mutterings about ETOPS in the 1990s, and assuming the Delta was operating ATL LHR in this manner, my wife wants to know if this smokey event counts as an engine failure under the convention covering ETOPS statistics...

ATCO butting in here (apologies to the jockeys), but the bit I’m interested in is whether they blew both bottles or not and if the fire continued if both were indeed blown.

Really? 🤓

Like Una, I would like to know if the fire continued after they fired the bottle(s), which also removes fuel to the engine.
If the fire was contained inside the engine, the fire drill should have stopped it.
I don’t believe they landed without trying to put the fire out. So, what was burning?

Hydraulic fluid, engine oil, composite parts ect.. lots of reasons a fire will not go out. Fire bottles are 1 shot devices that do nothing to prevent reignition. Here is a example of a fire burning long after the bottles were fired and the firefighting crew attempting to extinguish the fire.

Agree ... but re-ignition with available fuel source better pretty damn rare in the air, or it's emergency AD time