An autoland, in limiting conditions, is, in some respects more difficult than a hand flown landing.
"How so?" you may ask.
Well, a lot of kit and computers must, demonstrably, be functioning before and during the approach; most importantly that the aircraft is accurately tracking the approach path in the vertical and horizontal planes - Glidepath (although we aren't gliding) and Localiser - and that it intends to flare at 20ft to 30ft above the runway.
When I flew my first automatic civil jet, the instructors' task was, amongst others, to ensure that we could fly the aircraft through the auto systems when our natural inclination was to disconnect and hand fly. Building confidence in the ability of the automatics takes training time - "What's it doing now?" being a common comment.
For a manual ILS (Instrument Landing System) approach the Decision Height is usually 200ft above touchdown. As systems, both ground and air, improved, the automatic landing DH went from 100ft to 50ft to 20ft to zero.
Using a Cat2 DH, of, say 100ft we'd call "50 above" at 150ft and "Decide!" at 100ft. If the aircraft could not be seen to be tracking correctly the next call would be "Go around." and, if tracking correctly, "Land."
Last time I flew with a Cat3C 0ft DH, we had a 75m visibility limit which was to permit us to taxi and the "Land." call was made at 1000ft above touchdown - but fear not - we still monitored the systems as before, ready to downgrade, increase the DH, land manually (vis permitting) or go around.
So you can see that there is a LOT more decision making in a very short time when monitoring an autoland in min vis conditions than hand flying to, say, 200ft.
Going on a bit, aren't I but, finally, when I began flying the RAF Argosy in 1968, we had a little leader cable aerial fitted on the nose which was to be used for automatic taxiing in zero vis. The ground cables have yet to be installed.