Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

a writes:

There was something in the literature recently about using a/p in IMC
is safer, but from my point of view I am much more aware of what's
going on hand flying (and have done so over the Rockies) than sitting
back and 'managing' the airplane while it's on auto pilot..

The workload for single-pilot IFR is substantial, particularly in actual IMC.
This is an important argument favoring the suggestion that autopilot be
heavily used for IFR. With two pilots, things are easier, although an
autopilot might still be preferable.

At least the autopilot only does what it is told. At the same time, it does
encourage a certain amount of complacency, which has even bit airline pilots
on more than one occasion.

A sad confession is the a/p does do a better job of keeping the
needles crossed on an ILS than I do, but the correct interpretation of
that is, I need more practice at it than the a/p does.

There's no shame in an automated system doing better than a human being at
something it is designed to do.

A huge 'and
moreover' is, I want hands on near minima, don't want to mess with the
a/p if I have to fly a miss, and don't want to transition from a/p to
manual when I decide conditions are not right for a landing.

Aviators understand this stuff.

It depends on the aircraft and the type of flying.