The incident aircraft was an Airbus..

However, they would of had available to themat least two other sources of information regarding the status of the hold once on the ground.

The cargo temperature indication and reports from Fire Service over the radio who would be scanning the hold with their thermal imaging equipment.

This is why Airbus feel confident enough to say that you may disembark the passengers not evacuate them.

A decision to evacuate must not be taken lightly as you will cause injury to passengers.

With the fire service report that the hold is not showing signs of heat, the indication that everything is normal on the cargo temperature indication.. Coupled with firefighters standing by outside the aircraft with the capability to fill the hold with agent within a few seconds.....

Can you really justify causing injury to passengers as opposed to a controlled disembarkation by steps? Keeping open the option to evacuate if the nature of the incident changes.

If the fire service reports that the hold is showing signs of heat or smoke issuing then it is a completely different situation.

Indeed it does, and forms part of Boeings recomendations regarding handling such incidents repeated in the FCTM.

Please understand that by "Fire Indication" I meant cockpit annunciation. Obviously a fire confirmed by other indications (smoke, flame, heat) is a completely different thing and would indeed mean an evacuation.

It does not however form part of any individual checklist. Nor does it cover the case where it has not been positivley confirmed that a fire exists in the first place, or that indications are that a fire HAS been extinguished.

Are you suggesting that this paragraph means that any fire warning must necessarily lead to an evacuation, without seeking confirmation or otherwise from other sources?