Effendi,
The tail cone jettison pipe is designed for exactly that and works well. But no one could or should design for a chunk of metal to cause a large leak in a wing fuel tank
The point is that the aircraft is designed to deliberately squirt fuel vapour between the afterburner exhausts - without incident. Your comment <<no one could or should design for a chunk of metal to cause a large leak in a wing fuel tank>> is facile - any aircraft suffering a high energy impact of debris on the wing under surface will leak fuel. Even if the afterburners could ignite a fuel leak (they cannot), the flame propagation speed would not result in the ignition reaching the leak source. And for the record - F-BTSC did not suffer a fuel tank penetration from an external source.
Secondly, you talk of minor leaks. I though the NY incident was very major.
The problem was contained - the aircraft design proved itself capable of coping with this incident safely - and steps were taken to prevent recourrence. Effectively. Shame this cannot be said of many other types.
Thirdly, you say of Gonesse that "the mechanism leading to the tank rupture was not penetration by debris". Don't understand that.
The accident report is in the public domain.
Lastly, you say of Gonesse that "this a/c fuel tanks were not penetrated by anything from outside". Please explain.
F-BTSC's fuel tank was ruptured from the inside by a freak chain of events which was unique in aviation history. Not only was it an incredibaly improbable event - many millions of pounds and many thousands of man-hours were spent making sure those tiny odds became zero before return to service. This cannot be said of any other jet transport in service today which has suffered a fatal accident.