Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Ice/Rain Protection System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While taxiing to the runway; we received an ENG 1 A-ICE DISAG level one alert. The Captain stopped short of the runway and I referenced the QRH. The QRH indicated that there was no consequence; but we would need to leave icing conditions. I looked up the MEL on my handy dandy iPad. When searching the table of contents; I found MEL 30-22-04 'ENG ANTI-ICE Switchlights--DISAG Lights'. It said normal complement of 3 and all three may be inoperative. We contacted Maintenance and told them of our alert. Maintenance said they thought we had to return to the gate. I indicated we were looking at MEL 30-22-04 and it was not flagged. He responded; 'If you want to use that one; you can use the crew MEL' or something to that effect. We sent the ACARS message to initiate the Crew MEL process indicating what alert we had and what MEL we though we needed to use. We did not get an ACARS response initially so the Captain called Dispatch on the phone to get the process moving. Dispatch sent the information for the Crew MEL. As I looked at the MEL closer; I wasn't sure if we had the right MEL; so I asked Maintenance why they thought we needed to return to the gate. He didn't indicate what MEL he thought we should use nor offer any real help. He just wanted us to use Crew MEL process and put an orange MEL sticker in the jet. The Captain and I discussed this and agreed that the engine anti-ice could be turned on in accordance with the MEL and we did get the ENG 1 A-ICE On alert. We used ENG Anti-ice failed open for the takeoff performance data and selected ENG 1 anti-ice ON for takeoff. We took off uneventfully. We were able to turn the anti-ice off airborne and the DISAG did not come back initially. It did come back and flicker on/off a few times enroute. I believe the valve was slightly out of adjustment and wasn't fully closing on deck which is why we got the intermittent indications. While airborne enroute to our destination; I looked closer at the MEL and found MEL 30-22-01; Engine Nose Cowl Anti-ice Shutoff and regulator Valves Engine 1 or 3 valves (Inop Open). This was indeed a flagged item. I think this is what Maintenance probably looked at first when they suggested we come back to the gate but they never told us this. As a crew; we found the non-flagged MEL we used in the Crew MEL and were not aware of the one we should have used. I think Maintenance was not very helpful in two ways; communication in what they were thinking regarding the MEL they thought we should use and they were just as happy to send us on our way using Crew MEL with the wrong MEL. For the Crew MEL process to work; Maintenance needs to communicate what they are thinking since maintenance is their specialty. We need to pull information from them better to ensure we are in full compliance with the MEL. I believe we ended up using the wrong MEL in the Crew MEL process. If Maintenance had been more forthcoming in what MEL they thought we should be using rather than saying 'If you want to use that MEL...' we would have come back to the gate and done it properly. If we had asked more questions when it didn't seem right we might have found the correct MEL...although I did indicate we were trying to get our facts straight as Maintenance was bugging us about the orange sticker.I suggest better communication. Maintenance needs to tell us what MEL they think it is rather than just going with what we think it is. We are not maintenance experts although we do know the airplane and the MEL system; that is primarily a maintenance area of expertise. We can do a better job pulling info if we aren't getting the support we need. I don't think I'll encourage the captain to use Crew MEL if this is the support we get from Maintenance regarding the proper MEL to use.


Second narrative: The crew MEL process is intrinsically flawed. It depends on pilots being as versed in maintenance of the aircraft as Maintenance Control. It is too easy; in the middle of the night; to misinterpret a level 1 problem. The Crew MEL process; designed to save time and money; is a degradation of safety and should be revisited.


Synopsis: A DC-10 crew MELed an engine anti-ice system after leaving the gate when the ANTI-ICE DISAG light came on because they thought it was an indication error and after takeoff the fault self corrected.