Singapore put one on the grass in Germany last year doing a autoland,
NN,
My question is --- so?
If this is the incident I think you are referring to, it was a low speed departure from the runway due a issue that was not directly related to the fact an auto land was carried out. Again, as I recall, weather/viz. was not a factor.
If you were to use this SQ incident as a criteria, there would be no more auto-lands, to ensure the circumstances could not be replicated.
Whether you like it or not, ALL aircraft operations have a risk management basis underpinning the SOPs.
In the general Australian approach to when alternates will or will not be legally required (not just Qantas), the statistically valid results over the last 60 years or so validates the adequacy of the minimum legal requirements.
As I used to tell my student:
(1) If I always took the minimum the law (the fuel policy) allows, the company would go broke, because of the number of diversions.
(2) If I always took enough to cover every possible contingency, the company would go broke, because of the loss or payload and added fuel burn
(3)That is why we have the bloke or blokess called Captain, the one who finds the happy medium on each and every sector.
Tootle pip!!