Narrative:

All segments of flight until the last 20 feet on approach appeared well-managed with effective flight technique. Prior to take off; the crew noted the threat associated with the IAP availability for only runway xy and the then reported winds favoring a runway xx. On arrival; the winds had changed and the risk mitigation plan stated to utilize ILS runway xy; autobrakes 3; flaps 30 with a high-altitude vdp to combat the perpendicular winds and short runway. This decision corresponded with ATIS and existing air traffic management. Despite the tower reporting winds 270v280/05 the flight experienced moderate turbulence from about 14;000 feet and most definitely on the approach.from 12 miles behind the localizer; an aircraft ahead on final reported a gain of 10 knots 4 miles from the field. The first officer (first officer) flying-pilot noted this message prior to encountering the moderate shear. CRM maintained crew dialogue in real time; announcing the deviation and then the correcting action. At 1;000 feet AGL the automation was disengaged for the first officer to align the flight track with runway centerline from the 1.5 degree localizer offset. Our position and range appeared proper and so I focused more attention with trapping IAS deviations. During the approach; speed; lateral; and vertical control were properly maintained until the GPWS cadence of the last 20 feet accelerated faster than my comfort. After we hit the deck; spoilers deployed; the upwind wing rose abruptly. Both pilots aggressively countered the motion with hard ailerons deflection. With lateral control regained; the reversers were spooled to their maximum value; and then stowed circa 80 knots. At this point there were no clues alluding to a pod strike. After block-in; onboard maintenance came to the flight deck to perform the arrival procedure and discovered a value of 0.50 vibration on the number 4 engine per the central maintenance computer (cmc); no associated EICAS messages. It was initially assumed that the abrupt landing triggered the cmc notation; however the post-flight check revealed engine 4 contacted the pavement.it's often echoed that a B747 pilot is always current; however rarely proficient. There may be more truth than poetry in this statement as it pertains to landing currency. Many airlines address this issue from various angles; from monthly biddable international relief officer positions to pattern-mandated landings. I believe perhaps a concoction of the aforementioned would relieve the 'currency conversation;' however it's the flight familiarity that needs detailed attention.as the company adjusts to market demands; it's important that our training departments move with the ebbs and flows as well. Maintaining a status quo curriculum; especially in the scope of an augmented crew environment; needs special attention to manage the multi complexity that comes with new pilots with various backgrounds and now the currency conversation. I would like to see the frequency of landings per pilot increased on a monthly basis as it is a sure way to breed skill and proficiency. Perhaps this means incorporating sim landings while transitioning through ZZZ up to the less attractive notion of renting sim time at places co-located with our operation. And yet; perhaps a more pragmatic approach would be to purchase a few flight training devices and have them placed in our highest-pilot-transitioning-bases for crews to work on sight; sound; and control of landings in regular-to-extreme environments.landing technique and analysis to include flight operations quality assurance (foqa) data should be a point of discussion on a quarterly; if not monthly; basis. Pilots love to learn from others' problems; which simplifies any cultural abrasion that may come from adding more features to the job description.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B747 Relief Pilot reported encountering windshear on landing. Upon parking; Maintenance discovered damage to the outboard engine.

Narrative: All segments of flight until the last 20 feet on approach appeared well-managed with effective flight technique. Prior to take off; the crew noted the threat associated with the IAP availability for only Runway XY and the then reported winds favoring a Runway XX. On arrival; the winds had changed and the risk mitigation plan stated to utilize ILS Runway XY; Autobrakes 3; Flaps 30 with a high-altitude VDP to combat the perpendicular winds and short runway. This decision corresponded with ATIS and existing air traffic management. Despite the tower reporting winds 270v280/05 the flight experienced moderate turbulence from about 14;000 feet and most definitely on the approach.From 12 miles behind the LOC; an aircraft ahead on final reported a gain of 10 knots 4 miles from the field. The First Officer (FO) flying-pilot noted this message prior to encountering the moderate shear. CRM maintained crew dialogue in real time; announcing the deviation and then the correcting action. At 1;000 feet AGL the automation was disengaged for the FO to align the flight track with runway centerline from the 1.5 degree LOC offset. Our position and range appeared proper and so I focused more attention with trapping IAS deviations. During the approach; speed; lateral; and vertical control were properly maintained until the GPWS cadence of the last 20 feet accelerated faster than my comfort. After we hit the deck; spoilers deployed; the upwind wing rose abruptly. Both pilots aggressively countered the motion with hard ailerons deflection. With lateral control regained; the reversers were spooled to their maximum value; and then stowed circa 80 knots. At this point there were no clues alluding to a pod strike. After block-in; onboard maintenance came to the flight deck to perform the arrival procedure and discovered a value of 0.50 vibration on the number 4 engine per the Central Maintenance Computer (CMC); no associated EICAS messages. It was initially assumed that the abrupt landing triggered the CMC notation; however the post-flight check revealed engine 4 contacted the pavement.It's often echoed that a B747 pilot is always current; however rarely proficient. There may be more truth than poetry in this statement as it pertains to landing currency. Many airlines address this issue from various angles; from monthly biddable IRO positions to pattern-mandated landings. I believe perhaps a concoction of the aforementioned would relieve the 'currency conversation;' however it's the flight familiarity that needs detailed attention.As the company adjusts to market demands; it's important that our training departments move with the ebbs and flows as well. Maintaining a status quo curriculum; especially in the scope of an augmented crew environment; needs special attention to manage the multi complexity that comes with new pilots with various backgrounds and now the currency conversation. I would like to see the frequency of landings per pilot increased on a monthly basis as it is a sure way to breed skill and proficiency. Perhaps this means incorporating sim landings while transitioning through ZZZ up to the less attractive notion of renting sim time at places co-located with our operation. And yet; perhaps a more pragmatic approach would be to purchase a few Flight Training Devices and have them placed in our highest-pilot-transitioning-bases for crews to work on sight; sound; and control of landings in regular-to-extreme environments.Landing technique and analysis to include Flight Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA) data should be a point of discussion on a quarterly; if not monthly; basis. Pilots love to learn from others' problems; which simplifies any cultural abrasion that may come from adding more features to the job description.

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.