Narrative:

We flew a right downwind for [runway] 35R east of the field; on a heading of about 180. We were given a clearance to descend to 3;000 (from 4;000) abeam of the FAF. A [wide body aircraft] was coming up from the southeast and it appeared we would be following him. As he passed abeam us (approximately 2 miles away) approach asked us if we had him in sight. I checked with the first officer (pilot flying) and he nodded his head yes (I knew we saw him; I was checking to see if he was ok with accepting the incipient visual approach). I advised the controller we had the [traffic]; and he said 'cleared for the visual to 35R; turn right to heading 320.' this surprised me (us) because to be 'cleared for the visual' meant we had control of our heading and altitude. The turn to 320 resulted in an unacceptably shallow angle to join the final and placed us closer behind the [traffic] than we liked. I advised the controller we would need to turn back to the left some (about 290 heading) to join the final; and he said; 'that's ok; I am just required to give you that [320] heading.' to be fair; the 290 heading pointed us directly at traffic landing on [runway] 35L so I understand the concern there. Nonetheless; we needed the 290 heading to properly join our final. We turned final for [runway] 35R with no overshoot. This is all background information for this: we would never have turned in that close to the other aircraft if it were up to us. I think the controller was comfortable with it because of the new recat procedures. As the first officer began his flare at 50 ft we encountered significant wake turbulence from the [preceding wide body aircraft]. We rolled left and then right and just as we both were about to call 'go around' the rolling stopped. The touchdown was normal and at the thousand foot markers. In summary; had we been allowed to fly a visual approach as is normal; where we choose the track and altitude; we would have gone out another mile or two and would not have had a wake turbulence encounter in the flare. Saying 'cleared for the visual' and then assigning a heading is contradictory; in my opinion. Our approach was stable in all respects until the wake turbulence encounter at about 50 ft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A widebody Captain reported encountering wake turbulance just before landing (50 FT AGL) in trail of another widebody.

Narrative: We flew a right downwind for [Runway] 35R east of the field; on a heading of about 180. We were given a clearance to descend to 3;000 (from 4;000) abeam of the FAF. A [wide body aircraft] was coming up from the southeast and it appeared we would be following him. As he passed abeam us (approximately 2 miles away) Approach asked us if we had him in sight. I checked with the First Officer (pilot flying) and he nodded his head yes (I knew we saw him; I was checking to see if he was ok with accepting the incipient visual approach). I advised the Controller we had the [traffic]; and he said 'Cleared for the visual to 35R; turn right to heading 320.' This surprised me (us) because to be 'cleared for the visual' meant we had control of our heading and altitude. The turn to 320 resulted in an unacceptably shallow angle to join the final AND placed us closer behind the [traffic] than we liked. I advised the Controller we would need to turn back to the left some (about 290 heading) to join the final; and he said; 'That's ok; I am just required to give you that [320] heading.' To be fair; the 290 heading pointed us directly at traffic landing on [Runway] 35L so I understand the concern there. Nonetheless; we needed the 290 heading to properly join our final. We turned final for [Runway] 35R with no overshoot. This is all background information for this: We would never have turned in that close to the other aircraft if it were up to us. I think the controller was comfortable with it because of the new RECAT procedures. As the First Officer began his flare at 50 FT we encountered significant wake turbulence from the [preceding wide body aircraft]. We rolled left and then right and just as we both were about to call 'go around' the rolling stopped. The touchdown was normal and at the thousand foot markers. In summary; had we been allowed to fly a visual approach as is normal; where we choose the track and altitude; we would have gone out another mile or two and would not have had a wake turbulence encounter in the flare. Saying 'Cleared for the visual' and then assigning a heading is contradictory; in my opinion. Our approach was stable in all respects until the wake turbulence encounter at about 50 FT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.