malabo
As 212 says, there is no flight director in the 225. The AFCS is rrpm aware so I think it would try to lower the collective following the second engine flameout, however it certainly wouldn't be quick enough to save the day. Since the AFCS is all-dc and powered from the essential bus, it would not drop the coupling from any electrical supply reasons (and anyway the alternators are driven by the transmission, not by the engines).
Although you mention that the coupling would drop out, would there be a few seconds between the generators going off line and the bus couplers opening (therefore unpowering the FD coupling system)? -its 5 seconds on the Super Puma family aircraft. Sorry, I know nothing about an S76 electrical system.
The purpose of my post was not to start another EC vs Sikorsky argument (that argument was won a long time ago!) but just to point out the flaw in some of the previous posts - as you say, pilot's knowlege of how their automation behaves is sometimes limited to "normal ops" - and, if I am honest, to suggest a scenario that might explain an element of the alleged data CycColl posted.
You mention pilots sitting with arms folded, I am not suggesting that but as a trainer I see pilots flying OEI on checks with hands nowhere near the collective. Twin-engine pilots don't have the same mentality as single-engine pilots - the latter will dump the lever at first sign of trouble, the former will spend time analysing the situation before doing anything. With a simultaneous flameout of both engines, maybe you don't have that time...
HC