A MD11 with Pratt and Whitney engines developed a FADEC fault. Because the air carrier also had GE engined aircraft; maintenance applied the GE MEL procedure and the flight crew flew the aircraft with the incorrect procedure applied because they failed to notice the engine type difference.

Narrative

After receiving the flight release and reviewing information; it was determined that there was an MEL item related to a FADEC fault. After consulting the MEL; the crew determined that a level one engine FADEC fault may be displayed; but the FADEC will be operative and the only operational limitation or procedure was to enter FADEC normal mode INOP into the MEL section on the takeoff data on the operations computer. The preflight was uneventful; the FADEC switch was properly placarded; and the information was entered into the performance computer. All other ground operations were normal and we never received the level one engine FADEC fault alert. The flight continued with no issues; and the return flight in the same airplane had no abnormalities or unusual occurrences. I received a voice message the next afternoon from an Assistant Chief Pilot explaining that he had received word from maintenance that they had mistakenly used the deferral/MEL procedure for a GE engine; although this was Pratt & Whitney engine aircraft; and that we; the crew; had also applied the improper MEL. Although we applied the MEL code as it was listed on the release; through further scrutiny on the part of the crew could have determined the improper coding of the MEL on the release. It is imperative that we; as a crew; must always thoroughly review the entire MEL title and procedure to determine that it is the appropriate procedure for the particular aircraft engine or configuration.