Narrative:

At about 2000 ft MSL on departure from bna, the #1 engine fire light illuminated and the bell sounded. The first officer, who was fling, silenced the bell. The immediate attention items were covered. Immediately after, we began the engine fire/severe damage checklist. Before the bottle discharge was pressed, the light went out by itself. The entire checklist was accomplished resulting in shutting down engine #1. After completing the 2-ENG approach and landing checklist, we made a normal approach and landing. We did not declare an emergency because the fire light went out without any action on our part. The safety of flight was never in doubt after the fire light went out, which was only on several seconds. In our company I now notice we are to declare an emergency (manual) for any indication of fire aboard the aircraft. We were given priority handling by approach so we did not have to exercise this authority/authorized to bring the flight to a safe conclusion. Although I am not sure 'aboard' the aircraft refers to any fire, i.e., cabin or engine, or just cabin, I now, the next day, believe I should have been more conservative and declared an emergency. Obviously an engine fire is an emergency. When the light went out so quickly, it changed my 'perception' of the event and took it out of the 'emergency' category. We were now left with a 2-ENG approach and landing, which is only an abnormal procedure. My perception of this event affected my judgement and decision making after the fire light went out so quickly. Had the light not gone out so quickly my perception, judgement and decisions may have been different. The question now arises, should the light extinguishing so quickly affected my judgement? Did an emergency still exist? In this case, no. Maintenance informed us a duct had come loose causing high temperature air to be going where it should not have, probably causing the fire warning.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR ACFT SHUT DOWN 1 ENG AND RETURN LAND AFTER ENG FIRE WARNING.

Narrative: AT ABOUT 2000 FT MSL ON DEP FROM BNA, THE #1 ENG FIRE LIGHT ILLUMINATED AND THE BELL SOUNDED. THE FO, WHO WAS FLING, SILENCED THE BELL. THE IMMEDIATE ATTN ITEMS WERE COVERED. IMMEDIATELY AFTER, WE BEGAN THE ENG FIRE/SEVERE DAMAGE CHKLIST. BEFORE THE BOTTLE DISCHARGE WAS PRESSED, THE LIGHT WENT OUT BY ITSELF. THE ENTIRE CHKLIST WAS ACCOMPLISHED RESULTING IN SHUTTING DOWN ENG #1. AFTER COMPLETING THE 2-ENG APCH AND LNDG CHKLIST, WE MADE A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG. WE DID NOT DECLARE AN EMER BECAUSE THE FIRE LIGHT WENT OUT WITHOUT ANY ACTION ON OUR PART. THE SAFETY OF FLT WAS NEVER IN DOUBT AFTER THE FIRE LIGHT WENT OUT, WHICH WAS ONLY ON SEVERAL SECONDS. IN OUR COMPANY I NOW NOTICE WE ARE TO DECLARE AN EMER (MANUAL) FOR ANY INDICATION OF FIRE ABOARD THE ACFT. WE WERE GIVEN PRIORITY HANDLING BY APCH SO WE DID NOT HAVE TO EXERCISE THIS AUTH TO BRING THE FLT TO A SAFE CONCLUSION. ALTHOUGH I AM NOT SURE 'ABOARD' THE ACFT REFERS TO ANY FIRE, I.E., CABIN OR ENG, OR JUST CABIN, I NOW, THE NEXT DAY, BELIEVE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CONSERVATIVE AND DECLARED AN EMER. OBVIOUSLY AN ENG FIRE IS AN EMER. WHEN THE LIGHT WENT OUT SO QUICKLY, IT CHANGED MY 'PERCEPTION' OF THE EVENT AND TOOK IT OUT OF THE 'EMER' CATEGORY. WE WERE NOW LEFT WITH A 2-ENG APCH AND LNDG, WHICH IS ONLY AN ABNORMAL PROC. MY PERCEPTION OF THIS EVENT AFFECTED MY JUDGEMENT AND DECISION MAKING AFTER THE FIRE LIGHT WENT OUT SO QUICKLY. HAD THE LIGHT NOT GONE OUT SO QUICKLY MY PERCEPTION, JUDGEMENT AND DECISIONS MAY HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. THE QUESTION NOW ARISES, SHOULD THE LIGHT EXTINGUISHING SO QUICKLY AFFECTED MY JUDGEMENT? DID AN EMER STILL EXIST? IN THIS CASE, NO. MAINT INFORMED US A DUCT HAD COME LOOSE CAUSING HIGH TEMP AIR TO BE GOING WHERE IT SHOULD NOT HAVE, PROBABLY CAUSING THE FIRE WARNING.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.