GipsyMagpie
I can't believe I'm reading your last post - maybe it's time you reconsidered your career. You're not really going to tell me that an ATPL/CPL needs to be warned that low collective settings can result in excessive rates of descent when the AFCS is coupled to VS are you?? If so you just should not be flying - your understanding of basic physics, let alone absorption of training, is simply inadequate.
With regard to the hazards of AFCSs, just how much nannying do you want? So you want 4 axis? And who or what is going to ensure you put the correct parameters into the system? The frequency for the ILS even? Maybe you'd like the whole lot automated so you can sit there all day doing nothing?
The more automation you have the more scope for boredom, over-reliance and degradation of monitoring and even hand flying skills. Of course there is a balance - no one is going to advocate SP hand flown ILSs. But given the number of instrument approaches that are flown quite acceptably with 3 axis AFCS systems, the current balance is well within the scope of two well trained pilots, concentrating on the job.
Maybe in this incident use of AS hold rather than VS would have been better - at least then the consequence of inadequate power set would have been a higher ROD from the outset and when the radalt warning sounded, assuming neither crew picked up the ROD cue, pitching up into a climb with the heave of collective would have avoided the VRS that took them into the sea.