Thanks all for the replies thus far, very interesting.
I agree with many comments, and FWIW - to actually fly and be part of a crew - the Airbus I do love. But Airbus' publications (and this is where I will have to possibly disagree with some?) are absolutely awful in the main, and that I am afraid I will likely always have unless they correct the 'Franglais' at the least, come up with something that is adapted accordingly as per my previous comments.
I did have a thought or two (odd for my 'little cogs' I'll admit) - as I was reading through (or trying to!) the FCOM again earlier, something occurred to me - the FCOM is the "
Flight
Crew
Operating
Manual" - this therefore I would suggest is a resource that is supplied for use by an appropriately trained Flight Crew, agree? i.e. it's aimed at a pilot,
not an engineer. And I think this is perhaps where I have to take issue with the Airbus (FCOM), as in far too many areas, it goes in to some depth and description - which is fine - but the information has to be relevant and applicable, and the FCOM simply isn't that at times, when referenced to by a pilot who (arguably) needs access to clear, concise and unambiguous information in relatively short time (not like eQRH, FCTM etc. but you get my meaning hopefully) - or else (IMHO) it becomes misleading and hence dangerous maybe at times - because it leads an individual to have doubts, confusion or mis-understanding about some systems and procedures etc., or certainly until having re-read many, many times (far too many in my case) to make sure you have the right 'twist' on an FCOM chapter.
some pilots and instructors attempt to baffle with pseudo science, pontificating about Control Laws etc without really understanding
I think the above quote (thanks for that olster) bolsters my earlier statement regarding interacting with other Airbus guys & gals - there is definitely doubt and I think this is instilled in no small part due to lack of FCOM understanding possibly, which means the FCOM is 'standing on it's head' here in intent, completely at odds to what I would suggest is what it needs to achieve. There will always be occasion that of course some content will be somewhat technical, complex and so forth and mis-understandings will happen, naturally. But the FCOM (IMHO) adds to that unnecessarily in far too many areas and ways, because it needs (nee - must have!) adaptation to it's geographical market area if nothing else (yes, sorry - another rant). And the fact that Airbus staff in various areas contribute to publications like 'Safety First' and alike, even the FCTM being much better than the FCOM - means that it is possible and achievable by Airbus Industrie. They already have proven that in aforementioned areas, so for me I would suggest - whomever you've tasked before and to-date with FCOM authoring - remove them, give it to the ones that have proven form for creating the 'good stuff'. The author's of the FCOM are I will undoubtedly say, geniuses and very clever - but I think they are coming at it from the wrong direction, and purely from an engineering point alone (and probably a high level design and engineering function at that) and not really getting the pilot role and function in needing information the way I suggest - anyone agree?.
I do agree with not trusting any non-approved resource and so I do have to persevere with the FCOM. But, for me - it's frankly bloody awful and has the issues for me personally I have highlighted - hence my desire to try and find something far better (albeit non-approved I agree) and that a little like making your own personal notes - I can read, consider and verify accuracy to a reasonably high degree through use of non-Franglais and decent illustration when relevant (like Boeing and Cessna manage to do).
Oh, I still think i'm quite likely an 'A' haha - but I appreciate the suggestion to some extent of being otherwise olster
