For the pedantics out there, modern aircraft do not routinely leak fuel. If you think carrying 11 fuel leaks is normal than more fool you.
In 18 years I have seen one fuel leak on a 35 year old Hercules prompting an immediate RTB and fix by Lye eng wg.
You have been conditioned to think that it is normal to get leaks and that the response of removing ignition sources is perfectly adequate.
Nimrod is beyond it's sell by date, over-torquing joints and sending the problem further down the line is hardly best engineering practice.
"..if you're removing an aluminium bolt and replacing it with a steel one - itself a howler, explained very clearly by QQ. Think of something simple like the expansion bolts that hold your cylinder head and engine block together in your car. The manufacturer puts a matched set in, made from the same material, at the same torque setting for very good reason. What would happen if you took out half the bolts at random and replaced them with bolts of a dissimilar metal. The "expansion" characteristics change and you'd probably blow a gasket. You wouldn't do it in your car, so why do it in an aircraft in an area where the whole point is to seal fuel tanks."
Nice use of Al Jazeera though.
Boeing 787 will have fuel tank protection it arrives in the same year as MRA4, a military aircraft procured for the front line. MRA4 will not have fuel tank protection.
And it won't have a whole lot of other protection either. You might want to question your own CoC for that decision making.