DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General None Reported / Taken
Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL; Manuals
Aircraft had MEL 26-22-01. The MEL I believe was fully complied with; and the Captain did a Cargo Fire Test as part of his pre-flight. We received a Level One 'Cargo Fire Test Fail' alert. The MEL did not address whether or not this was a proper indication; but intuitively it seemed logical to get the 'Test Fail' with one [Fire] bottle MEL'd. We consulted the QRH; which directed us to contact 'MAINTENANCE'; so we contacted Maintenance who came to the cockpit. They had a similar take on the [Fire Test Fail] alert; as they felt it was a logical occurrence due to the [Cargo] Fire bottle being inoperative. At that point in time we felt we had complied with both the MEL and the QRH; so we flew to ZZZ1 uneventfully. After talking about the problem further in-flight; both the Captain and I felt that the MEL should be written to tell us whether or not the 'Cargo Fire Test Fail' indication with this MEL is a normal indication or not. This would save a lot of time for future crews. Indication not addressed by the MEL. [Recommend to] have the MEL indicate whether a 'Cargo Fire Test Fail' alert is normal with this MEL. Airline Transport Pilot.
Reporter stated the Cargo Compartment Fire Suppression System in their DC-10 aircraft is an 'after market' installation. He suspects that system has not been fully integrated with the Aircraft's Fire Test System equipment and was the cause of the 'Cargo Fire Test Fail' alert. He realizes there is a grey area whether or not the remaining Fire bottle was actually available; but since they had to stay within 90-minutes of a landing location; they decided to depart.Reporter stated about 95 % (percent) of the time; their MELs will say 'You will see this' in reference to an expected Annunciation or Indication as a result of a specific deferral. In this situation; the MEL and QRH did not address the 'Fail Alert' issue.
First Officer reports a Level One 'Cargo Fire Test Fail' alert appeared during a pre-flight check after one of the two fire bottles in the lower forward cargo compartment of their DC-10 had been deferred under MEL 26-22-01. The MEL did not address whether or not that was a proper indication. First Officer recommends the MEL be revised to indicate the 'Fail Alert' is a normal occurrence. Aircraft departed without additional information.