Well we are all in agreement about the need for common sense.
Sleeper and Captplaystation claim never to have had a disconnect in what is now jointly 39 years of doing autolands. But they are regularly doing them on unprotected CAT 1 runways. Frankly this is getting a bit improbable.
I have witnessed aircraft going around because other aircraft infringed the protected area by crossingthe CAT 2 hold, which they are perfectly entitled to do in non LVP conditions. Other vehicles can have the same effect.
TNT came even closer to writing off a 737 not so long ago at East Midlands on an autoland. I believe it was actually written off after the go around and later landing in Birmingham. Completely different I hear you say. Maybe it was not so very different. Let us see what the report says.
One of my favourites in the sim is the engine failure on a dual channel approach below CAT 1 decision height. O.K. not very likely I hear you say, but the back trim combined with reduced visual cues is a handfull.
Airmanship in my book is not assuming the automatics are going to do a better job of it. We all know that you can do an autoland on some CAT 1 runways, some companies apparently recommend it and most of us probably have had or would have a go in good conditions.
In my book 1500 metres vis and 200' cloudbase are relatively good conditions. Cloudbase 100' and RVR hovering around absolute CAT 1 minimums would not be. Length of runway also plays a role. The question is if it is safer to carry out an autoland at an unfamiliar airfield in the middle of the night in extremely marginal conditions.
This is not speculation about what AEA did or did not do on that fateful evening. But I would be genuinely interested to learn what other 737 pilots think about doing autolands under these circumstances.