I would fly an approach in the airline environment with weather down to CAT1 minimas by hand, but it was always a risk if I had to go around since the company would have been angered at the cost. They would say, correctly, that if I had left it to the automatics I could have gone to CAT2 or CAT3 and thus gotten in without the chance of a go around.
Going around, especially at busy airports, could involve an hour or so of extra flight time, and consequent missed connexions, lost gates, etc, as well as delayed schedules down the line.
I admit it was a risk, but how else do you train for actual approaches without flying them? In the real world that is, not the simulated one. Only in the real world do you get real winds, instrument and approach aid errors, distractions and the like. Nothing like a bit of pressure.
Not all airports report accurate weather, and it was always a risk, but I got away with it for many years and never got caught out.
I did not know any other PIC who did the same, they all, to a man (or woman) would leave it to the auto pilot, even if a CAT2 was not available, since they could then blame the auto pilot for the go around. No question of their skill or lack thereof.
Those same people were loathe to give a landing to the FO as well, for similar reasons.
A lack of skill or a lack of responsibility?