It is a fact of aviation life that engines need fuel and those same engines produce very hot air for other systems. So, it is inevitable that we will have a cocktail of ingredients for a fire, on most aircraft types worldwide, in engine compartments. So, we install fire warning and extinguishant systems. We have hot gas leak detectors in those compartments and we have aircrew trained to deal with these situations. The Nimrod includes all of these measures.
The pipes in question are either subject to the above safety measures or they are not now in use while airborne.
The cracked junction by the SCP, specifically mentioned in the BAe report, is monitored by a hot gas leak detector. There are 5 detectors in that area. The BOI were fully aware of the possibility of a duct failure in the area of the fire and didn't need to see the report anyway. It would only have confirmed their findings.
Mick, I admire your tenacity in this sublect, but we must be aware that tests and studies of this nature are very narrow in their scope and they set out to address only the questions that are posed by the sponsor. The wider issue of what happens to the aircraft when a pipe leaks is not within the scope of that BAe report and it cannot be used as the sole arbiter of aircraft safety. It is a quantum leap in logical thought to suggest that an air pipe failure (which I guess the report suggests is not unlikely) in a Nimrod engine bay will cause a catastrophe and therefore makes the aircraft unsafe. Of course, the ducts will leak/fail. We will know about it immediately and we are well prepared to deal it.
Ed Sett