Sorry to disagree with a few of you but. . . unless the glidepath is promulgated as being unsuitable for coupled approaches below a certain height ( which as I previously stated it SOMETIMES is) there is no good reason NOT to take advantage of A- The increased availability of monitoring capacity for both pilots B - The reduced possibility of "ducking under" after you disconnect, or indeed that old tendency to "uncorrect the drift" C - no eye adaption required, from gloom and crap, to OW that is bright 4 - Reduced chance of smacking it in big time due to poor depth perception 5 - Less need to select landing lights until landing assured ( as you don't need to really see the runway surface as such) so more chance of actually seeing the approach/RW lights at minima. 6 - Less individual variation in performance (autopilot versus humans). . . if you work , as I do, in a company with a lot of inexperienced guys you will appreciate this one. 7 - Go-Around can be flown automatically, again , safer, more positive, much more consistent. 8 - If you are lucky enough to be performing approach on a CAT 2 or CAT3 runway and you briefed adequately, the only consideration required in the event the RVR worsens on approach are that you have LVP protection and that you rebrief the minima. The only disadvantage ( if you can call it one) is that you must be aware ( not a bad idea for any approach in crap vis) whether ATC is providing ( or even if they exist ) LVP'S , whether there are any specific limitations on plates or Notams for GP, and to be aware of what you actually NEED to see to call "LAND ", but that is only Airmanship and can hardly be seen as a demerit.With 19 European Winters in Command of an Autoland -capable aircraft I have made enough landing's in marginal Cat 1 conditions ( and at the same time felt equal measures of admiration/trepidation for colleagues who disconnected and landed manually) to know what is safer and less stressful. All the F/O's I have had the pleasure to fly with have commented that they have preferred this to what they had done with Capt A.N. Other the night before, so this is not my own obstinate opinion. If you respect the rules and know the limitations of the ground/ aircraft equipment it strikes me as a no-brainer, it's what Mr Boeing fitted it for.