Now I am confused EdSet. While the board certainly ruled out a repeat of the XV227 incident, the talk of the absence of a hot air leak seems very firm given that the board rests its findings on a series of probabilities and said on Para 38, pages 2-27 and 2-28:
"Nonetheless, the board concluded that while a large hot air leak was unlikely, a small leak could have caused the necessary disruption [to a part of the fuel system] but would have needed a considerable time to do so."
It went on to say:
"The Board concluded that a leak of engine bleed air could have caused disruption to the fuel system, either to a fuel coupling on the refuel pipe work or to a seal on the front face of No 7 tank, leading to a fuel leak when AAR pressurised the system, thus, such a fault is a possible cause of XV230's fire and, thus, of the loss of the aircraft."
Did they not know about the leak warning system or would it just not have detected a small leak?