XHooker

Joe, if it's a cargo fire, you're still Cat III autoland capable down to an RVR of 600. I've never taken off with an RVR that low outside of a sim. Let's say it's an engine fire and you had to shut one down. The 777 is still Cat III autoland capable on one engine, as I'd bet the 747-400 is with three turning. No need to fly for two hours. Let's say it happens in my Super Guppy... I'm using captain's emergency authority to shoot an approach below mins if I've got an uncontrollable fire onboard.

The real question is whether it's more dangerous to take a plane airborne with a fire light than to perform a high speed RTO. I don't think there's been a hull loss for either reason in a US passenger plane since the cargo regulations were changed in the wake of the Valujet crash, which leaves us with what our guts tell us individually. When I'm doing a bleeds off takeoff in the Guppy and see I'm just below the runway performance limit, I know it's tight. Are the runway condition, aircraft and pilot up to the standards of when Boeing did their RTO testing? One possibly not, two probably not, and three definitely not. Your experience and training tells you you'd rather reject for a fire light. That's all well and good and you might be right. All I'm asking for is the collective Star Chamber that figures this stuff out to do it based on statistical analysis and not on two groups fighting over "... because we've always done it like that."